The "Government Take-Over" isn’t about the Public Option
Posted on August 13th, 2009 by Richard Kirsch, National Campaign Director in Profits Before People
 |
In his The Take blog in the Washington Post (8/12), Dan Balz writes that the vocal opposition to Obama on health care isn't really about health care as much as it is about the debate over the role of government. He's right. But Balz's proposed solution - jettisoning the public option - would do nothing to diminish the right-wing anti-government opposition. Such a move would simply take the legs out from under any progressive support for reform.
Balz is correct that extreme reaction to the health care proposal is really a rejection of the notion that government can help solve key problems in America. The election last fall was a strong repudiation of those who would limit the government's role in solving huge challenges facing the nation. President Obama's New Foundation program faces the same virulent reaction that FDR engendered with the New Deal.
No matter what the President proposes on health care, the right will loudly label it a "government take-over." Just as soon as the economic stimulus bill was introduced, the right-wing message machine began demonizing government-funded research on which medical treatments work the best. Every component of Democratic health reform plans is characterized as a government take-over: establish standard benefit packages for insurance plans, require individuals and businesses to contribute to coverage, set up an insurance marketplace, etc.
The public option became an early lightning rod because the health insurance industry started gunning for it the week after Election Day. Republicans quickly jumped in. For the industry, having to compete with an insurance plan that has a public mission and the clout to deliver good, affordable health care is a threat. They'd like reform to deliver a government mandate for everyone to buy insurance, giving them tens of millions of new, profitable customers without making them compete with a public health insurer.
But if the public option weren't part of the Obama/Democratic reform plan, the right would still be screaming about a "government take-over" as loudly as it is now. If you look at the Frank Luntz Republican message playbook, it doesn't discuss the public option or any other policies; it's a ready-made, anti-government message for any and every Democratic policy proposal. And the right-wing anger we're seeing now isn't directed at giving people a choice of a public health insurance plan. Instead, opponents have managed to turn a doctor's discussing a living will with a patient into euthanasia.
If scuttling the public option won't quiet the right, it will definitely quiet the left. And that would be disastrous to the prospects of Democrats passing legislation this fall. Giving people an alternative to the private health insurance industry is the one issue that highly motivates progressives. Over and over again at Health Care for America Now, it is what our tens of thousands of activists - from grassroots community people to high-dollar Democratic donors - want to talk about. For them it has become the measure of whether health reform is about real change or just a cosmetic lift to a broken system. Responding to those same voices, the four Democratic committees in Congress have passed legislation that includes a public option, and the President has consistently reaffirmed his support.
Maybe that's another reason that Republicans in Congress are so focused on killing the public option. The Republican strategy for health reform is the same as the insurance company strategy for paying big medical claims: delay and deny. If Republicans in the Senate succeed in killing the public option, they'll cause mass desertion from the progressive army that's powering the President's agenda for reform.
Has anyone else found it ironic that when Republicans boast that government doesn't work it's usually when THEY are in power?
The insurance companies are not going to lower the profits of their shareholders willingly. It's just not good business. And neither the bill, the President nor anyone else other than the special interest is suggesting that insurance companies won't exist after a bill is passed.
The insurance industry should not be allowed, on the other hand, to continue business as usual.
Read this article about the more than 1500 people who showed up for free health care in Inglewood, CA.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090812/ap_on_re_us/us_free_health_care_1
I would ask Health Care for America Now to report on this, because we should be ashamed to live a country where thousands of people are sent away in pain while corporate insurance companies are enjoying billions of dollars in profit for a few individuals.
Profit = Human Suffering
When more than 18000 people die each year for lack of health care, that is a NATIONAL… SECURITY…. ISSUE. That is nearly 6 times the deaths of the attacks of September 11.
The debate in Washington, the debate in the country, is LOWERING…THE COST…OF HEALTH CARE.
It is the moral thing to do, it is economically wise thing to do. To sabotage the debate means setting the United States on the path to becoming a third world country.
Those right-wing Republican terrorists and Corp big-wigs are scaring the hell out of people and should be voted out of office next election, since they can't play fair. I guess the millions of dollars they receive must be worth it to them.
The Health Care package proposed by the President would benifit all Americans. They will be insured, can't be told that their policy doesn't cover whatever they need, and their policy will cost less, and they can choose whichever Ins. Co or Doctor they want to.
I hope maggots crawl down their lying throats.
I Googled you tonight after seeing you on The News Hour this evening.
I want to thank you for being such a great spokesperson for health care reform. Keep up the good work!
Here is the Feedback I just sent to the News Hour on the subject:
"I found myself growling at the TV tonight during Judy Woodruff's interview of Dick Armey and Richard Kirsch.
I think Ms. Woodruff is far from an objective interviewer, and her (or whoever's) choice of Dick Armey as a spokesperson for the Republican side of the health care debate questionable at best. Richard Kirsch, on the other hand was well versed on his subject and held his own well against Armey's fearmongering.
I have had it up to "here" with the Networks fear-inspiring coverage of the health care reform debate (in between solicitous ads from drug companies), but I don't expect to see the same on the News Hour.
Please, PLEASE, bring back Gwen Ifill and give your viewers what we expect from PBS: Measured debate on the issues."
Here are the problems. First, the administration allowed the the right-wing lobbyists to set the debate and therefore, define what health care reform is. And second, congressional Democrats who fear losing re-election are mistakenly running away from a public option. Let me state this clearly: any sitting Democrat who will lose his seat because of his vote for reform with a public option WILL LOSE RE-ELECTION ANYWAY. Do they think that the Repubs will leave them alone if they betray their party? Doesn't the bully come back tomorrow for more lunch money if you give in to him today? No, retreat is not an option on healthcare.
Though I agree with most all of Mr. Kirsch's blog, we have a vital disagreement on his statement that "the election last fall was a strong repudiation of those who would limit the government's role in solving huge challenges facing the nation." The majority of swing voters would also disagree. They voted for the President and against McCain for predominately other reasons. Were it not for their fear of Democrats and spending, Obama would have won 75% of the vote. This is an important distinction with ramifications for the next elections, as many moderate voters are indeed afraid of bigger gov't and deficits. The Repubs know this and will capitalize even moreso if we lose the public option. The Republican plan is simple; it is to first label reform as gov't take-over, then defeat the plan itself. This way, they can rightfully claim that they are the ones who stopped socialism and its added cost to the deficit. This is why we must pass a meaningful and encompassing health care reform bill. Their success is our failure.
The Administration could certainly offer cover for these embattled Congressmen. Healthcare reform is essentially about using the power of the people, through their gov't, to control the cost of healthcare. That's it. Stop. If the Admin. had stopped at this, it would have disarmed the Repubs of the most useful half of their argument–the cost (the other half is that gov't involvement in HC is socialism.) We might be spending a bit today, but we will be saving a lot tomorrow. Most folks would buy that argument.
But instead, we had to hear about Suzy from Savannah, who lost her coverage, or Melvin from Minnesota, who went bankrupt. The normal reaction to these arguments is, "I'd like to help them out, but I don't have the money," which, of course, plays into the hands of the Repubs, who turn it into the idea that those with are going to have to pay for those without.
Now was this stuff that hard to figure out? Somebody please get me a line into the White House because they really need help.