The Progressive Half a Loaf Problem

Health Care for America is not single payer--a vision that, for both political and budgetary reasons, is unlikely to be achieved in the near future. Health Care for America

It's so depressing to watch progressive activists accept a bad status quo.  Progressives are supposed to change the status quo, not just work within it.  And in reading over this post from Roger Hickey about their new health care plan, I'm struck by the total timidity in actually dealing with the problem and the unwillingness to accept the job of social change agent.  

The problem with health care is not the policy details but the insurance industry, which is a business model dedicated to denying care to people and keeping the money, or what's sometimes known as negligent homicide.  The quote above is from our progressive group, not our Democratic groups that want to compromise.  We're negotiating with ourselves, in other words, before we even get to the table.  

More than that, the idea that health care reform negotiations are possible with the murderous health care industry is laughable.  Here's what makes this plan a political loser, from Goozenews.

My point is that opposition to this plan will come from the people who make their daily living from collecting that 16 percent of GDP. And that opposition will be intense. The insurance companies led the last war on health care reform. The drug companies, the device and equipment manufacturers and organized medicine will lead the assault on this or any other plan that is serious about controlling costs.

Opposition to single-payer health care and muddled plans like this one or the Wyden one will be the same in intensity.  And this one is weird and complicated, like every other plan that isn't single-payer.  This is an issue for the voters.  We will have to go to the voters and basically ask them to vote to end the health insurance industry.  Barring that, and you're just not serious about universal health care.

I see this kind of 'half a loaf' strategy popping up everywhere among progressives, from the ethics fight to energy to media reform.  We seem to be ignoring what Clinton learned in 1993 - these people don't compromise on issues fundamental to their control over the economy, ever.  They will fight as hard your smarty pants complicated plan that takes 'their concerns' into account as hard as they will fight your liberal plan that actually works and can be easily explained.

There is no implementation of policy this cycle.  We have to set up a series of debates over fundamental values, and then ask for voters to decide in 2008.  Fortunately, it's very unlikely that these industries are going to let anything go through this cycle, so we have time.

Let's get real.  At this moment in history, the public is on our side, not the side of the corporate elites.  Asking for half a loaf isn't a compromise, it means that nothing will be enacted, and it also means that progressives are failing at representing a public that just asked us to fundamentally reshape how the economy works to reduce economic risk.

 

Tags: Health care, public financing, single-payer health care (all tags)

Comments

21 Comments

Re: The Progressive Half a Loaf Problem

Opposition to single-payer health care and muddled plans like this one or the Wyden one will be the same in intensity.  

Amen.  There's no margin in caving.

by Professor Foland 2007-01-13 06:06AM | 0 recs
We Must Execute The Medical Kleptocrats, Brutally

We must enforce exactingly equal treatment and medical care for each and every resident of US territory. If super-rich elitishes attempt to run to Switzerland to obtain unfair superior treatment, they must be bounty-hunted across the earth, abducted, and brought back to the US and hung, just like Saddam was slaughtered. That is the only possible answer.

by blues 2007-01-13 06:10AM | 0 recs
I don't get it...

what does this comment have to do with the above discussion or any discusiin of universal healthcare in the States?

by teknofyl 2007-01-13 06:49AM | 0 recs
I agree... getting crap reform will be...

just as hard as getting quality reform.

Just go for the jugular... universal single payer healthcare.

by teknofyl 2007-01-13 06:48AM | 0 recs
Wow!

Perhaps the single most important words Matt has written:

We will have to go to the voters and basically ask them to vote to end the health insurance industry.  Barring that, and you're just not serious about universal health care.

This is the really hard fact that a million stories in the lefty sphere about healthcare snafus don't get at.

The only solution to healthcare is to eliminate health insurance. Health insurance companies have a market cap of - what? $50bn? $100bn?

This is not just a bit of bunce, like the bankruptcy bill - or even the old 27.5% oil depletion allowance. This is life or death.

If a proposal for single payer looks as if it stands more than a ghost of a chance, a tsunami of money that will be deployed against it.

It'll be the Civil War all over again - though without the guns.

Hardly surprising that lefties are shuffling on the subject right now.

by skeptic06 2007-01-13 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow!

The good news is--the public in poll after poll says they hate insurance companies.  Classic wedge issue, we can drive between corporate politicians and their voters

by California Nurses Shum 2007-01-13 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow!

I agree entirely...

...and the legislation to shut down the multi-billions in the Internet gambling industry seemed to come easily. So, why can't we achieve the same with the health care robber-barons?

...especially now that Frist's influence (try saying THAT 2-word phrase five times fast) is disappearing from the scene!

by klevenstein 2007-01-13 07:19AM | 0 recs
Right On

Progressives should also realize what an opportunity we have right now--even REPUBLICANs are proposing solutions for universal health coverage with increased regulation for insurance companies.

Their plans, like Hillarycare, are smoke, mirrors, and timidity.

We have the public on our side, the facts on our side, and the historical moment on our sides--what more do we need to strike for genuine change?

by California Nurses Shum 2007-01-13 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: The Progressive Half a Loaf Problem

Matt, Right on. One of your most incisive posts.

Progressives should focus on making it tough for health insurance companies to make profits, ie. require community rates, deny them the ability to exclude applicants, force them to have govt. agreement on their denial of any insurance claim, put them under the utility domain - where any rate increase must be approved by a govt. commission.

Once the health insurance field become less of a profit magnet, then go for universal insurance.

by carter1 2007-01-13 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: The Progressive Half a Loaf Problem

The multi-tiered program has been tried before and failed.  Hillarycare was the first try, the second being John Kerry's 2004 Presidential run.

Both times the program was criticized as being "too complicated".

All you need to do to get a universal healthcare system in the works is use the national healthcare system we have now-Medicare/Medicaid-and upgrade it so that it's a real insurance program that competes with the private sector, then make it so that everyone can get it.

Why do they have to make it so damn complicated?

by djtyg 2007-01-13 07:08AM | 0 recs
The Path to Single Payer

Runs right through Social Security Solvency.

By and large the Progressive blogosphere has internalized "There is no crisis" in regards to Social Security. But as yet there is little understanding of how healthy the system actually is. The message that Boomer Retirement is going to place a tremendous strain on Social Security has been planted so deep that it is probably impossible to eliminate it by sheer repetition of the relevant numbers. God knows I have posted a couple gazillion words on productivity as it relates to Low Cost and only recently have been getting any penetration at all.

So treat this as a pure hypothetical, a pie in the sky thought experiment. Don't relate it back to what you "know" about Social Security, just go with it. Humor me.

What if on March 31st, 2007 the Trustees of Social Security released their Annual Report and revealed that not only was Social Security projected to be fully solvent through the 75 year window but was overfunded going forwards to the point that FICA payroll tax needed to be marginally reduced. Put aside any economic considerations, what would this mean in purely political terms?

Well for one it would be a total vindication for FDR and the New Deal. Which is to say a punch in the nose for Cato, AEI and Club for Growth. In many ways Social Security has been the poster child/punching bag for the Economic Right. It has been there all purpose out for opposing any new governmental social programs, most emphatically Single Payer. Social Security 'crisis' served three purposes for the Right: one it was "proof" that Big Government didn't work, two it provided a shield against Single Payer, and three by a back road it provided a justification for supply side tax cuts. If you could not only remove "crisis" from the narrative but replace it with "fully funded" and "solvent" you would be able to kick that three footed stool right from under them.

What would the initial result be? Well you would expect denial on the part of the Economic Right, and confusion everywhere else. In this scenario the key for Progressives would be to take that confusion and focus it into anger. Because the question is going to arise: If Social Security isn't broke why did we all think it was? And the answer will be pretty simple: because the Right has been lying to you. Again. Still. Just like Iraq. If we could not take that double package of lies and couple it to a proposal for incremental Single Payer then we do not deserve to win.

Back to reality land. Is it likely that the Trustees will release such a Report? No, not because you could not plausibly support the case for Solvency, that case has been pretty good since the 1998 Report and pretty much rock solid since the 2001 Report. The Bush Administration has been staving off Solvency by an increasingly desperate manipulation of the projections and assumptions. In so doing they have pressurized the model to the exploding point and at some point it is going to blow and the more they strap down the pressure cap the bigger the explosion when it comes.

So I fully expect them to come up with something for 2007, perhaps they can still keep the straps on for the 2008 Report. (The Bush Administration not being much on the "we screwed up" message.) But if Democrats are in the White House in 2009 and the Report is released with an honest set of numbers the Republican Party and the Economic Right are just not going to know what hit them.

Which all is to say that I don't share Matt's pessimistic "if not us who, if not now when" message. You can't always tell exactly when a tank is going to blow, but often enough you can hear the rumbling. Right now the Right Noise Machine is mostly drowning that out - the signal to noise ratio is just too low. Put your ear next to the tank.

My last MyDD diary was on this. From last January: Social Security as Weapon in the Mid-Terms Its impact was roughly equivalent to a fart in a hurricane. But the point remains and the issue is even stronger in a Presidential cycle. We can get to Single Payer by unleashing a couple of cans of FDR Whoop Ass and in large part neither side sees it coming.

by Bruce Webb 2007-01-13 07:28AM | 0 recs
If your first response to this

-- is: Doesn't this guy know about (insert your choice) boomer demographics, phony IOU's, raided Trust Fund, covered worker ratios of 3:2?, well then understand in advance that I do.

I also know the Economic Assumptions of Tables V.B1 and V.B2 and the Demographic Assumptions of V.A1 and how they play out in the Operations of the Trust Fund 2006-2080 as seen in Tables VI.F7 and VI.F8 and as depicted graphically in Figure II.D7.

If that is just gibberish to you I would suggest you hold your fire and do a little reading. You could start with the first chapter of Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrots Social Security: the Phony Crisis

Tiny excerpt: "Furthermore, the forecast of a shortfall in 2034 is based on the economy limping along at less than a 1.7 percent annual rate of growth--about half the rate of the previous three decades. If the economy were to grow at 1998's rate, for example, the system would never run short of money."

If your response to the first sentence is "2034? I thought it was 2041". You need to understand that depletion is continually being pushed back, and a crisis that has been pushed back an average of 1.2 years per year over the last decade is a crisis that will never come. Which brings us to the second sentence. The answer there? The economy did, the system won't.

by Bruce Webb 2007-01-13 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: The Progressive Half a Loaf Problem

Pennsylvania's has a really nice bill about to be reintroduced: http://www2.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/BI /BT/2005/0/SB1085P1504.pdf

I can't see anything wrong with it except that the legislature won't pass it.

by joyful alternative 2007-01-13 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: The Progressive Half a Loaf Problem

great posts.

Progressives for too long have gotten used to losing.  Now we are getting used to winning, and the same old measured centrist sound bites are no longer appropriate.

Presented with a bill that insures almost everyone, or that slightly reduces the burdensome costs of insurance, our elected officials' response needs to be "this is a first step, but I will not rest until we have passed truly universal coverage for all Americans".  
Then make it happen.  

by chiefscribe 2007-01-13 07:53AM | 0 recs
Primer on the Insurance Industry Generally

http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/print/cgs028.h tm

My biggest concern with national health insurance has been the loss of jobs in the insurance companies but it won't be that much less than 2 million easily, and I can see many of those switching over to whatever national system the government sets up.

But what I want to know is how are we going to fight what basically amounts to a coalition of the most powerful industries and respect people on the face of this Earth (Insurance Companies, Big Pharma, Doctors) sans 1 (the Oil Companies). We need a battle plan to create overwhelming public support and public activism to combat the opposition.

by MNPundit 2007-01-13 08:38AM | 0 recs
No, that's OK, we'll fight them too.

We got to fight Big Oil on the climate crisis, so we'll be fighting them at the same time.

All the while opening up the door to "they are going to take away your health care" when 9 in 10 are satisfied with their health care and 6 in 10 with their health care costs.

by BruceMcF 2007-01-14 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: The Progressive Half a Loaf Problem

Hear hear! Exactly spot on.

Medicare For All! How hard is that to say? To email, write, and phone to our congressmembers?  

by mrobinsong 2007-01-13 09:02AM | 0 recs
There Is A Solution In PA
It is called the Family and Business Healthcare Security Act of 2007 which will be reintroduced in the Pennsylvania legislature soon.  Nadine Bean, Co-Chair of HELP PA (Health Education & Legislative Progress) wrote an article about the plan which I published on my blog this morning with her permission.  You can find it here:  http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.typepad.c om/my_weblog/2007/01/health_care_for.htm l
You can read the bill and 101 reasons for enacting it here:  http://www.pahcsc.org/
by PA progressive 2007-01-13 09:51AM | 0 recs
Half a loaf failure is not a bug. It's a feature
Matt,

Those half-arsed plans are meant to fail. But what is interesting is that, each time, they are moving leftwards towards universal health care, not towards the for-profit health lobby. Even Schwarzenegger is moving towards universal coverage in CA. It is just setting up the moment where the country will be so fed up that it won't even accept any form of negotiation with the for-profit health lobby. And that day, Congress will have no choice but sign the bankruptcy of the whole sector.

Oh and I really like the way you put that

The problem with health care is not the policy details but the insurance industry, which is a business model dedicated to denying care to people and keeping the money, or what's sometimes known as negligent homicide.


Now, if there is a district attorney interested, I see jail time for a few health insurance CEOs.
by Fifi 2007-01-13 10:08PM | 0 recs
Re: The Progressive Half a Loaf Problem

Thanks, Matt, for a really, really excellent post. You've cut through the issues really incisively here.

by sb 2007-01-14 08:32AM | 0 recs
by lucym 2007-06-26 08:02AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------