The fake fight over fake reform
Bruce Dixon over at BAR absolutely nails it. His post analyzes the absurdist theatre we’re now witnessing with Democrats and Republicans, which he compares to “televised professional wrestling.” Please go read the whole thing.
What I want to excerpt here, though, is Bruce’s cogent summary of just what the HCR bill does:
On the whole, the Obama health care legislation is just plain bad. It’s fake reform. Most of the people getting medical coverage for the first time under its provisions will get it through an expansion of Medicaid. The Medicaid expansion and inclusion of children in their parents’ policies till the age of 24 are perhaps the only unambiguously positive aspects of the bill, and both these could have been passed through the House and Senate at any time since the end of 2006.
Supposedly, insurers can’t refuse to insure anybody, or jack prices on the basis of pre-existing conditions, and can’t revoke policies when people get sick enough to actually use them. But so many loopholes and end runs have been written into the legislation that these and other widely ballyhooed provisions to safeguard the interests of patients are in fact meaningless. The ban on pre-existing conditions for example is negated by allowing insurers to offer “wellness” discounts. The older, the fatter, the less physically fit and the already sick need not apply for these discounts, and the fit will lose them when they gain a few pounds.
Insurance policies will continue to cherry pick their customers in the marketing, and like the credit card industry, insurers will now be able to evade already weak state regulators by selling policies across state lines. This will undoubtedly lead to concentrations of insurance companies in the least regulated states, and a race to the bottom. Health coverage that many working Americans now get will be steeply taxed, and to evade this tax employers will simply offer policies worth less, provoking yet another downward stampede.
Big pharmaceutical companies are assured exclusive rights for even longer periods than before to new classes of drugs, and insurance companies are prohibited from paying for the re-importation of drugs originally manufactured here from Canada, or combining to negotiate drug prices downward.
The ban on selling low-cost health insurance to the nation’s twelve or fifteen million undocumented means the border will now extend to every doctor’s office and emergency room in the land. And insurance policies offered through “the exchange” are prohibited from covering abortions or a list of reproductive health services.
Private insurance companies will use their all-too-real death panels to continue to decide which procedures they will cover, and which ones they won’t, and how much they will pay for them. Health insurance premiums will be capped at just under ten percent of a family’s income, but this will not include already high co-payments, or deductibles. In Massachusetts, where a version of the president’s plan has been law since 2006, sick people are forgoing treatment because they cannot afford the high co-payments and deductibles, and the flood of bankruptcies from unpayable medical bills is continuing.
The legislation is not a step toward single payer, as it removes none of the legal obstacles facing states which choose that path on their own. It’s almost a good thing that most of the bill’s provisions don’t take effect till 2014.
And of course the too big to fail private health insurers get a stream of compulsory customers, some of them paid for in part with government money.
Now I’m just waiting for John Cole to call Bruce a firebagger.
27 Responses to “The fake fight over fake reform”
-
Toonces says:
Barack Obullshit and the Republicans present ‘Healthcare’, now through 2016.
March 25th, 2010 at 8:05 pm EST -
gxm17 says:
The way I see it, we have just witnessed a colossal bait and switch carried out in front of the eyes of an entire nation. It’s not merely a fake fight over fake reform. It’s not merely Kabuki. It’s a con.
The Republicans have miraculously managed to accomplish passing Republican health care “reform” on the Democrats watch. And as an added bonus, they can privately celebrate legislating women into a health care gender ghetto. (Only the lucky “progressives” get to publicly celebrate and ring in the brave new era of codified gender apartheid.) And the best part is that they can now use this “socialist” reform to beat Dems at the polls in November. It’s really quite a brilliant play, though it’s hard to admire such a well drawn swindle when one is busy pounding one’s head against one’s desk.
I’m having a hard time figuring out just what the Democrats thought they were getting out of this mess, but then I just remind myself that a scandalously large portion of ObamaNation’s “progressive” bloggers are ex-Republicans.
-
hm says:
“..I just remind myself that a scandalously large portion of ObamaNation’s “progressive” bloggers are ex-Republicans.”
This fact missed by most Dems (and unknown to most everyday Dem voter on the street) has surprised me throughout the primary that the Dems let those bastards in to do the talking.
-
Violet Socks says:
Speaking of bait and switch, read this over at Corrente:
Greenpeace Can’t Quite Believe that Instead of a Live Pony, It’s Getting Dead Whales
If you follow the breadcrumb trail you’ll get to an action alert email from Phil Radford, the US director of Greenpeace, in response to President Obama’s personal push to reinstate commercial whaling. “Never did I imagine that we would be defending the whales from President Obama,” Radford writes, “a man who inspired so much hope in our hearts for a green and peaceful future; a man who promised Greenpeace he would help strengthen the commercial whaling moratorium.”
Yeah, well, that and a buck fifty.
-
ugsome says:
It’s not kabuki, it’s bukkake, with the voter on the receiving end.
-
Sameol says:
gxm17, it’s a win for the Republicans, but it’ll be a win for the Democrats as well, I bet. Many of these provisions defer until right about the time the Republicans will probably take over. They won’t change anything because why would they, and the resulting mess will bring the Democrats roaring back, claiming that they really, truly brought us UHC but the other party messed it all up. We’re never getting off this merry-go-round.
-
Briar says:
The coverage over here makes it quite clear what the USA got from this “reform”. It’s an emphasis of the rebranding exercise that began with Obama’s nomination. Our papers and media (including the slavishly pro establishment BBC) call the “reform” “historic” and claim that it means Obama has proved himself a consummate leader of the “free world” etc. In other words the “reform”, like the election of a black president, is essentially symbolic and about establishing America’s moral authority in the world at large, which the neoliberal oligarchy needs if it is continue its onwards march into every formerly protected economy.
-
votermom says:
We were admiring Bruce’s post over at TC yesterday — perfect title, shattering insights. He must have a mind like a katana blade.
-
merciless says:
gxm, deacon blues over at The Left Coaster says the democrats get money, lots of corporate insurance pharma etc. money, which they will use (along with their bankster money) to entrench themselves and keep their majority.
This seems reasonable to me, since the republicans can’t very well run on “repeal the bill” and expect financing by the industries profiting from the bill.
-
Joe Obot says:
This seems reasonable to me, since the republicans can’t very well run on “repeal the bill” and expect financing by the industries profiting from the bill.
Why not? The Democrats ran on “reform health care” while taking money from the health care industry.
-
Grace says:
Nothing has or will change in a fundamental way,either with the Bushes, Obama, Clinton, or Rodham, because if it ever would it will mean the end of U.S.’s economic power and control.
Whether with democrats or republicans in the White House, the essence of the status-quo as we know it will remain the same. And that’s also why the Dennis Kuciniches, Ralph Naders, or Cynthia McKinneys or this world can’t and will never win presidential elections in this country of ours, ever. But I remember that Rome used to be an empire too, and look where it is now, with only historic ruins to show for its past “glory” and corruption.
-
Lori says:
Grace,
Don’t lump Clinton in with that bunch. Look at how much Wall Street and the health insurance industry spent to defeat her. Look at the rampage big media went on to drum her out of the race. Moderates don’t inspire that kind of vituperation. She’s a lefty through and through, with the voting record and the personal history, to prove it. We’d have lower unemployment, a much more stable real industry and a shot a real health care reform if she’d won.
Clinton’s a lot closer to FDR than Kucinich, that’s for sure. And she doesn’t sell out either.
-
Perry Logan says:
Yes, we con.
-
okasha skatsi says:
Grace–
Kucinich sold out for a spin in AF1. Ralph Nader sold out for his ego. Cynthia McKinney went for Obama in the end. There are good reasons why these people not only wouldn’t, but shouldn’t, ever win a presidential election here or anywhere else.
That said, both Clintons are considerably to the left not only of Obama, but–in practical ways that actually matter–to the three faux liberals you seem to admire. As Lori pointed out, the boyz in the bankz practically shat themselves at the prospect of her winning the Dem nomination. They bought it for a compliant and complaisant Obama instead and have been amply repaid.
-
Grace says:
Lori & Okasha Skatsi:
Listen, I voted and rooted ’til the end for HRC in the 2008 primaries. I deeply admired that woman because of her high intellect, ample knowledge of policy, hard work, and her consistent support for women’s rights. But I don’t blindly trust or worship her or anybody else. And neither I particularly admire any of the three people I mentioned (Kucinich, Mc Kinney or Nader).
But their criticisms of the main democratic candidates in 2008 were valid and I happened to agree with many of their positions, such as the fact that U.S. presidential elections have degenerated into celebrating whoever candidates have the most money, so that they can finance their demagogic and brainwashing political ads designed to appeal to knee-jerk emotions instead of logic and critical thinking.
And yes, about the fact that Hillary as well as Obama had lobbists and money from the health insurance and pharma industries. Historically, social movements have been the ones propelling and pushing social change; nothing else, not politicians or presidents who will end up selling out anyway, in order to preserve themselves and their stupid “legacy.”
-
. . . says:
“Health insurance premiums will be capped at just under ten percent of a family’s income, but this will not include already high co-payments, or deductibles.”
This seems inaccurate. I don’t think there is any cap on premiums for most people. There is a subsidy that would effectively cap premiums at 9.8% of a family’s income *for people who are unemployed or who work for employers who don’t offer insurance and who make less than 400% of the federal poverty level.* It does not apply to people whose employers offer insurance unless they make less than the FPL. It doesn’t apply to people who are covered by Medicare or Medicaid.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/P.....-insuranceAs noted, the 9.8% cap is only for premiums, not other out-of-pocket costs. What is not noted is that the “the premium credits will be tied to the second lowest-cost silver plan in the area”. Silver plans cover only 70% of health services. So for people who buy individual policies through an exchange (and otherwise qualify), the amount that they pay for the second-worst plan that pays for ~70% of their healthcare services will be capped at 9.8% of their income. If they buy a better plan, it will cost more than the 9.8% (or other) cap.
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfmMany people who must purchase health care insurance will not be able to afford to use it even if they are lucky enough to have their premium costs capped at 9.8% or less.
The new law also eliminates the subsidies for Medicare Advantage plans. This is awful for anyone on Medicare since those plans will now have to cut costs or reduce benefits (probably both) to make up for the lost subsidies.
It puts an annual cap of $2,500 on the amount that can be contributed for healthcare to flexible spending accounts. That amount was previously uncapped. Those accounts allow employees to pay for medical expenses with pre-tax money (i.e., the money contributed to the account is not subject to federal, state, or Social Security taxes). These accounts are very important for people with disabilities or chronic medical problems because they greatly reduce out-of-pocket costs.
Finally, it subjects more medical costs to income taxes. Currently any medical expenses in excess of 7.5% of your income are deductible for federal income tax purposes but the law raises that floor to 10%, beginning in 2013. This hurts taxpayers with high medical expenses, such as the disabled or those with chronic illnesses.
-
NomNomNom says:
#14“Cynthia McKinney went for Obama in the end.”
Cynthia McKinney ran for president on the Green party ticket; she did not quit before the end general election. How could she possibly have endorsed BHO?
Nor does she speak of BHO in anything remotely resembling a complimentary fashion now. -
DancingOpossum says:
Yeah, I’m not getting how McKinney sold out, or Nader for that matter. Anyone who runs for any public office has a huge ego, by definition; I don’t see how Nader has compromised anything he said before.
Kucinich, on the other hand, is an enormous sellout and a poster boy for bought-and-paid-for Dems.
I was a Hillary supporter, but I can no longer throw my support to any member of either party. Both of them have to go, and neither has one member who’s worth a tinker’s dam right now. I still admire Hillary, but I never liked her foreign policy views. True, ALL the candidates who ran from the major parties were warmongering hawks, there was no discernible difference among Rep or Dem there, except for Sellout Kucinich who is all talk, no action anyway, as we’ve discovered.
And I can’t go there with her. She’s become even more hawkish as SOS and I don’t see any sign that our horrendous, blood-and-gore overseas adventures would change under her watch. (OTOH, I know things would be better on the homefront.) At this point I’m voting Green again, and where there is no Green on a ballot I’m writing in Joe Hill.
-
Grace says:
I remember Kucinich saying after he voted for HIR that he felt “compassion” for Obama, and that if this bill didn’t pass, it would be the end of Obama’s presidency.I get the feeling that an interesting psychological process takes place when people talk in person to the Messiah, something like they get “hypnotized,” “sweeped” and brainwashed, the same phenomenon that takes place in exchanges with seductive salespeople or con artists. They fool people by seducing them with promises, flattering, and by making them feel important, beautiful (kind of difficult with Kucinich though), smart, etc.
-
julia says:
I tried to warn people about this horrible law since 2008 and no one would listen to me! Not that they should – I’m just a gardener, but I pay attention. I knew Massachuessets was a test case for this law; since they didn’t stand up en masse, the boys could pull it over on the rest of us.
Oh Dennis Kucinch, the last hope of American liberals…..I could always smell something fishy when I campaigned for him and now I regret doing it. I’m sure they threatened him with something big: his job, or his “wife’s” green card. I’ve seen Kucinich humiliate a woman in front of a large San Francisco audience for apologetically asking him a hard question, and the one woman I told this to back home said he did it to her, too!
We still have the final say in this country, and what I mean is that they need us – we are the consumers. I propose a No Buying day once a month until they give us single payer, or rescind this disgusting law.
Anyone agree?
-
Sameol says:
I don’t think Kucinich sold out or was threatened or flattered. He’s in love with the sound of his own voice, but if the party needs his vote, he’ll drop his schtick and vote with them everytime. If it came down to his vote to continue the war, he’d sling a line of bull about the Department of Peace before and after, but he wouldn’t vote that way. He’s brave when they’ve got enough votes that his doesn’t matter, though.
-
Grace says:
The problem in this country is that people bond and attach themselves to perceived powerful self-promoted “leaders” or politicians and work for them with blinded loyalty, idolization, and submissiveness. As typical examples of this, let’s remember the stagecrafted promotion of John and Elizabeth Edwards, of course the Obamas, and also the tea-partiers’ cult of Sarah Palin and Liz Cheney ( I have nothing against them as women but I profoundly disagree with their ideology).
I don’t remember who said it, but in paraphrasing the unknown source, “We should be loyal to ideas and principles, not people.” It is the only way to remain ethical and truthful to ourselves. Or at least that’s the way I see it.
-
julia says:
Grace, very well put. I did a lot of work for him in ’04; not in ’08. And the main reason were the people, but of course the group disbands once the primary is over. You’re right Samoel, he is a party man, but I know US politics a little and I think they do nasty things all the time.
So, if not having health insurance is now a crime, does that mean that if you are shot while walking to the grocery store and the guy drives off and you have to go to the Emergency Room to save your life, you’ll also be charged with a crime? Will you have to pretend, after you were hit by a car, that your bleeding leg really doesn’t hurt that much so the police won’t call an ambulance that will cost you one thousand dollars because you don’t have insurance? This happened to me in Boulder, Colorado; I still don’t have insurance as I work for myself and could never afford it and now I will have to hide. What about women whose boyfriends break their arms, or rape them – will they have to stay home and suffer? Or worse?
Only a country as capitalist as this one would invent such a law, it’s the same way we deal with homelessness: it’s up to you. If you can’t afford it, too bad. Not my problem.
I would love for my taxes to go for Single Payer, infact, I’d be smiling as I wrote the IRS my yearly check.
-
Grace says:
Julia: To be fair to Obama’s HIR, he actually ended up imposing the same individual mandates that Hillary proposed during the primaries. Do you remember when Obama argued during the debates that mandates were unfair and even put on the “Harriet and Louise” ad as his counterpoint to Hillary’s?
In my opinion, the fact is that single payer, as good and cost effective as it is, will probably never happen because the corporate interests have tooooo much power. In a capitalist country as ours, profits almost always prevail, because they have been the law of the land for a long time.
What is hard to understand is how people were so gullible and blind to “leader” Obama about the subject of HC, when it was widely known that 1) He rejected public financing during the national campaign, and 2) He accepted incredible amounts of money from the pharma and insurance industries. It was such a simple puzzle that an 8 y/o could have solved.
-
lambert strether says:
Grace, at least Hillary was honest about the mandate, where Obama lied freely (well, expensively). At the time, I felt that the mandate at least achieved universality, and that Hillary’s proposal could be improved… incrementally, during the drive to passage. Now, after what the Ds and “progressives” did on HCR, I’ve got no faith in in[ex]crementalism at all. So….
-
willyjsimmons says:
Oh, Kucinich is certainly being rewarded for his troubles.
http://www.salon.com/news/denn.....nich_email
He gets to be the mouthpiece of the campaign committee now. (Remember, anyone who goes against Obama’s wishes gets no official endorsements, HAR!)
-
julia says:
Grace, I completely agree w/ you. When HRC started talking about a mandate in my town, during the campaign, I got up and left. I couldn’t stand hearing how whe ‘disguised’ it; then I knew my vote would go to the Green Party. You really know what’s up :)
This is a nightmare for me, personally, and I don’t know what to do. There are many people like me who have a small business or service, earn enough to pay for rent, food, etc but never enought for insurance. And don’t tell me, anyone, to raise my rates! Right now there are fewer clients and the streets of Eugene that used to be full of landscaping trucks, well you see a whole lot less of them.
