emptywheel has a rather disturbing and depressing post up calling the LIEberman reform bill a "road to neo-feudalism".
Consider, first of all, this fact. The bill, if it became law, would
legally require a portion of Americans to pay more than 20% of the
fruits of their labor to a private corporation in exchange for 70% of
their health care costs.
...
not only will citizens be required to pay private corporations. But middle class citizens may be required to pay more to these private corporations than they pay in federal and state taxes. Using these numbers,
this middle class family of four will pay roughly 15% in federal,
state, and social security taxes. This family will pay around $10,015
for their share of the commons–paying for defense, roads, some
policing, and their social safety net share. That’s 15% of their
income. They will, at a minimum, be asked to pay 9.8% of their income
to the insurance company. And if they have a significant medical event,
they’ll pay 22%–far, far more than they’ll pay into the commons. So
it’s bad enough that this bill would require citizens to pay a tithe to
a corporation. It’s far worse when you consider that some citizens
would pay more in their corporate tithe than they would to the commons.
...
When this passes, it will become clear that Congress is no longer the
sovereign of this nation. Rather, the corporations dictating the laws
will be.
I've never been more serious when I ask you to read the whole thing. I am terribly impressed that she does what so few do, and puts significant numbers to the issue. It is hard to disagree with the bulk of her commenters who claim that she hit the point straight on ... and yet I do have problems with her thesis.
The first problem is her obvious historical contradiction. She claims that LIEberCare would be the first instance of corporations taking control of our governance in writing our laws. This is simply not true, and she has already offered examples that I have little interest in belaboring here. I doubt that emptywheel meant so harshly that this is a singularity in governance, but that seems to be the import. This is not a change we haven't seen before. Medicare D, the entirety of laws concerning funding and protection of corporate sponsors of IraqAtaq and TARP bailouts are the most obvious examples. We even have a cliche for it: whoever has the cash makes the rules. I'm certain that EW would argue that it's the tithe that makes the difference, but that's hard to swallow as unique given the dire warnings left to us by Eisenhower concerning the "military industrial complex". Taxation for military appropriation is itself a tithe for the benefit of corporate sponsorship of our legislation.
My second difficulty in accepting EW's post as spot on is the underlying assumption that it is 'game over' once LIEberCare passes. It isn't, not by a long shot. This too is internally contradictory to her thesis. If this is not something new under the sun, and it's not, then we have had the ability to fight this kind of corporate totalitarianism before, and we remain with the freedom to fight again. Corporations may have control of our legal statutes at this point in time on this issue, but EW herself points to the idea of process. The game isn't over as long as we have the Constitution which remains, for now, beyond corporate reach. (Any wonder why I'm so against offering corporations 'personhood' status?) I believe that the mandate for coverage will be fought against as a perversion of interstate commerce law, being outside federal control to structure, and that that fight will be won. Sadly enough, I agree with Professor Rob Natelson on this point. I guess politics does make strange bedfellows. The establishment of health care as a universal right would be open to a much weaker challenge. The establishment of mandated insurance coverage outside state control certainly will be challenged from the right and the left. That alone shows that this fight will continue. Furthermore, the people will still have the vote for or against those who serve corporate masters. That is a double edged sword.
Which brings me to the third point, which is the heart of it all. emptywheel calls for defeat of the bill and starting the process over at a different time. Simply put, that won't work. That is, quite simply, closing the barn door after the horse has fled. Electorally for Democrats, the damage is already done. LIEberman has already smeared the party with his slime, and capitulation is seen as the only path Democrats are capable of following. Killing the bill right now won't change that one iota. Lieberman, Nelson and any petulant twit that wishes to own Congress already has proof of their power, and so do voters. Whether this bill passes in current form or not, expect Congressional approval to continue to plummet. And anybody who expects that a "progressive party" will rise from these ashes is truly delusional. The people will be given two choices as always, and this nightmare will likely hand power back to the party of NO. Anyone who thinks that Republicans will do anything for support of health care, raise your hand. Nope, didn't think so either. The damage is already done.
Defeating what is on the table now, takes it off the table. That should be obvious, but so many seem so confused about it. We want health care to be on the table. The way to do that is to keep it at the forefront of debate. Defeating this effort removes it, period. We've been having this same argument for over 60 years, and every time we let it slip, it disappears for another decade or two. This Senate effort, crap as it is, will keep the issue on the burner; in the courts, in public opinion and in the media it will continue to be debated, poorly, wisely and heatedly. Throw away the effort, and all you have is failure, utter and complete. The debate will die.
Now, Howard Dean wants a reboot, and it looks like many Democrats and progressives do as well. Scrap the current bill they say, and start over. Good luck with that. On this I agree most completely with John Cole.
Anyone who thinks the House and the Senate are going to just say “to
hell with it” and start over from scratch is just smoking rock. How
many months did it take for a bill to get out of Baucus’s committee
alone. On top of that, we would be treated to another six-eight months
of teabaggers throwing things at congressmen, wildly inflated claims on
Sarah Palin’s Facebook page and the op-ed pages of the Washington Post
(although, in reality, those two things are pretty much one and the
same these days), and so on. And then, you have to filter in that all
of this would be happening in an election year, and with the
notoriously timid Democrats, you have to be sniffing glue to think that
the bill is going to be easier pass and more progressive. And then,
assuming the House does manage to get it passed, does anyone think Ben
Nelson and Joe Lieberman are going to suddenly decide the public option
is a good idea? If so, why? Does anyone think that the blue dogs and
“moderates” are going to become less of a wholly owned subsidiary of
the insurance and pharmaceutical industries?
This isn't going backwards, whatever may come. The political damage is already done and it appears that at least some of our vaunted representatives realize that. There are still options left. Reconciliation, an end run of public option amendments, denying the mandate and making this purely a bill of 'insurance reform', court action. All these things are still possible and some are rather likely. This game isn't over yet. I for one would rather not call it until it is.
