Healthcare Revisited

by Jackson Dave

Approximately 44 million people in this country have no health insurance while another 38 million have inadequate health insurance. This means that nearly one-third of Americans face each day without the security of knowing that if and when they need it, medical care is available to them and their families.

Significantly, this group is under the age of 65. Seniors, who have Medicare, are the largest group opposing reform, and the largest group that opposed the election of President Obama. These people aren’t “philosophically” opposed (if they have their wits about them) to “socialized medicine”---rather, they are afraid that the extension of their benefits to other groups will result in dilution of their own benefits.

So what’s the fuss? Wendell Potter, former head of corporate communications for SIGNA, the largest healthcare insurer, left the industry after a chance exposure to our actual health care mess, to advocate on behalf of people’s health. He says:

… "we shouldn't fear government involvement in our health care system. …there is an appropriate role for government, and it's been proven in the countries that were in that movie”…(Michael Moore’s Sicko).

…also “opponents of reform say we don't want the government to take away your choice of a health plan. Yet it's likely that your employer and your insurer will switch you from a plan that you like to one of these high deductible plans in which you're going to find that much more of the cost is being shifted to you than you ever imagined.

… “we have a memo written by Frank Luntz, the Republican strategist who wrote the script for opponents of healthcare reform. "First, you have to pretend to support it. Then use phrases like, "government takeover," "delayed care is denied care," "consequences of rationing," "bureaucrats, not doctors prescribing medicine"".”


While opponents of reform “cherry-pick” the disgruntled from those systems to spotlight their case, the Holy Grail of healthcare is “the public option”, which now exists in Britain, Canada and Japan, available free to all. Republicans oppose this concept because it threatens the vested interests generating enormous profits under our system, which produces the worst healthcare statistics of the leading 29 industrialized nations, at twice the cost! Like seniors, the relatively small number of Americans who have excellent health insurance and benefits fear the prospect of being lumped into the larger pool, with perhaps degraded services. Generally they don’t really care about the health of the less fortunate who would benefit greatly from the public option.

To counter the force of this extremely attractive prospect the GOP has launched a massive propaganda campaign, spending $1.5 million per day, to frighten us into believing that this is “socialism”, that our health care benefits will suffer, that we will be driven to bankruptcy (as if we’re not already there), and that our civilization will collapse. The program of spin, distortion and lies---slinging out a stream of canards, watching to see what gains traction, and scaring the hell out of us, is standard GOP procedure for all political objectives. This machinery was used in the election last year, and has been perpetuated to sabotage the president’s legislative agenda, regardless of merit, and to dismantle any prospect for healthcare reform.


So what’s really happening? In 1993, when President Clinton attempted to push through healthcare reform, the industry made $2.5 Billion profit on health insurance and devoted approximately 95% of revenue to payment of healthcare expenses. In 2007, devoting only 80% to payout, the industry generated $12.5 Billion profit.

The reason for this trend is clear. Health insurance is in the hands of private enterprise, that much-hallowed, sacred cow. The boards of directors of the major insurance carriers have no responsibility to their customers except that which is enforced by the courts or government. An un-happy customer is not in the market for more insurance---he’s sick and trying to cash in on his policy. This is a client they want to dump. There's no incentive to pay for this customer’s health needs.

The boards of directors’ fiduciary obligation is to their stock holders. Stock holders don’t care a whit about sick people. Insurance companies are in business to make profit! Their stock prices jump or fall with each report of falling or rising medical payout ratio.

The primary social contract that lies between government of a democratic republic and its citizens is the government’s obligation to protect its citizens from external threats and from the rapacious drives of commercial enterprise. In what area is that obligation greater than basic health care? This is not just about how people feel; it’s about their financial stability and the viability of their family. Sick people who cannot afford care end up losing jobs, homes, families---all ultimately requiring public assistance. Healthcare should be a basic, public utility---not an industry manipulated by big-business mucky-mucks interested only in making money.


So why can’t we manage to arrive at sensible legislation? The short answer is political smoke. The Republican Party is masterful at motivating their constituency to make noise, and lots of it. There are many factors contributing to the success of their tactics, but perhaps the most salient is that this group makes life very uncomfortable for those who oppose it. Sarah Palin can accuse the President of advocating “death panels” for the elderly, and her devotees take to the streets. They’re easily motivated by anger over any number of things---probably angry because they think she should be president and they hate Democrats, or they hate black people---it doesn’t matter. Angry people can be motivated to action to oppose any agent that they can be manipulated to believe is victimizing them.

Right-wing mobilization surfaced during the Reagan years, as modern “conservatism”. Activism surfaced in opposition to President Clinton, but became demoralized and dormant under George W. Bush. Now with a “liberal” president and Democratic control of Congress, it has resurfaced with a ferocity unfamiliar since McCarthyism of the 50's. Calling these people "conservatives" is a stretch; they are radicals in every sense.

In the face of lies and smear campaigns, the left fights an up-hill battle to present its actual policy. The (“liberal”) media is complicit with the right by presenting their lies as “news”. Gone is Walter Cronkite, a real journalist, who would look into what’s happening and tell us that all of this chatter is a pack of lies! Rather, the press, with its milquetoast “reporters” report---over and over---what’s being said (not what’s really going on), giving veracity to the lies. This rabble, along with hysterical claims is grist for 24-hour cable news, which hungers for sensational anything. The more noise and the bigger the controversy, the greater the coverage. This creates a situation in which not only is the truth subordinated to lies, but one in which shameless lies are actually privileged over reasoned debate. The American public is aware enough of this bullshit factor that Jon Stewart (of Comedy Central) has replaced Uncle Walter as the most trusted source of news in the country.

The same lack of real journalism, by the way, is what led us to permit our government to wage war in Iraq and led us to the economic cliff. The sad truth is that most of our reporters are not prepared to distinguish government lies from truth. Actual journalism requires footwork, research, time and support from editors.

Now we see wackos carrying assault rifles to healthcare rallies. These right-wing proponents of “individual rights” appear for the express purpose of denying others the right of free expression that they demand for themselves. While they openly advocate murder of major political figures (including the president!), what intelligent normal citizen will stand up to them?

We Americans are so naïve, so politically unsophisticated that only a small number see the Republican strategy for what it is; and once again, these tactics have gained enough traction to throw the campaign for healthcare reform into disarray and possibly failure.

But while the forces of opposition are mobilized and unrelenting, there is some hope that reason will prevail. There are differences between what occurred in 1994 and today. Though the Obama base is contracting, today it is more diverse and more deep seated. The healthcare fight has brought doctors and even some drug manufacturers to support reform. Democrats with wavering support today see that success of the right-wing attack will embolden endless confrontational gridlock. They may be driven to the realization that the only politically feasible response is a counter-offensive.

Aside from their belligerent opposition, and in spite of claims to support Medicare, Republicans are actually (and quietly) proposing its dismantlement. They want to phase out Medicare for all who are now below the age of 55. Instead, those citizens would be offered a yearly allowance to “shop” for private insurers, essentially throwing seniors into the same dysfunctional pool with the rest of us. This would, of course, generate ever-greater profits for the insurance industry. A review of this agenda will bring most observers to discount their movement.



In 1934, William A. Wirt, a “Rush Limbaugh” of the age, accused the Roosevelt administration of a plot to launch a Bolshevik takeover in the United States. Wirt’s assertion was transparently absurd, but right-leaning institutions, including the New York Times and Los Angeles Times (with Harry Chandler at the helm) were quick to jump on board and air his claims freely. Those who were opposed to the New Deal were offered a concrete foundation for fear and alarm. Unlike President Obama, Roosevelt met these challenges head-on. Wirt was hauled before Congress to testify. His story was revealed to be fabrication and he became a laughing stock (as well as those institutions that advanced his claims). The Republican Party scrambled to disavow their previous endorsement.

The rebellion of baby boomers in the 60’s and 70’s from the twin shocks of the Vietnam War and Watergate signaled the beginning of our “modern (intellectual) age”. We would no longer be “hoodwinked” by slick politicians. The "information" age of television and the internet has brought sophistication to our children that most boomers will never know.

Yet even now stories of “foreign birth” and “death panels”, pronouncements from supposed “experts” dispensing silly nonsense about matters over which they know little, fill the airways. Town hall meetings are broken up by supposed “grass-roots” groups that are organized by prominent Republicans and get deferential treatment from the press. Claims that the president intends to establish a “socialist state” embolden red-necks to carry assault rifles into public meetings, advocating assassination of public figures.

We may look back condescendingly at Wirt, yet if he came on the scene today he would eagerly be given public forum of talk shows and major political rallies by those who oppose the president’s agenda. An educated man (Wirt was superintendant of schools in Gary, Indiana), he would be lionized even beyond “Joe the Plumber” as a purveyor of truth. Are we really no more sophisticated than those of three generations ago who would latch onto the elixir of any snake-oil salesman who preys on our naiveté by saying what we want to hear? It appears that we’re not.

Jackson Dave is a Robbinsense staff writer