Even small victories against corporate America are enormous

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 13:15


Based on a conservation I had last night with a Senate Democratic leadership aide, there is no way that health care reform will be signed by President Obama in 2009.

The expectation is that Republicans--and reluctant Conservadems--will drag out the debate and amendment period for a minimum of two weeks.  With the House of Representatives going on recess on December 18th, this means that the conference committee will not happen until Congress reconvenes in January.  So, expect at least another month of this epic legislative fight.

It is not a big secret why this fight has lasted so long.  Among all of the remaining legislation being seriously considered by the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress, health care reform is the only one with a chance to expand the relative size of the social safety net, and (through the public option) increase public ownership over the commanding heights, over the long-term.  Nothing else remaining on the legislative horizon does that, not even the jobs bill.

In an America that has become increasingly dominated by moneyed interests over the past three decades, victories like this do not come very often.  Outside of temporary measures like the stimulus, social investment spending in the United States has stagnated as a percentage of GDP for going on 35 years.  35 frreakin' years!  Progressives just don't win fights like these anymore.

Sure, the proposals on the table have lots of flaws.  All of them are inadequate to solve to scope of the health care problems that we face.  However, one useful way of looking at this fight is not over redirecting 0.3% or 0.5% of our GDP toward the social safety net, or over transferring a meager 5% of the health insurance market to a watered down public option.  Instead, this is about whether or not progressives can win any fight to expand the social safety net over the long-term by any amount anymore.

If we can't win this fight, then what hope is there for ever expanding the relative size social safety net?  Virtually none, as we will continue to only have models for defeat.  However, if the bill passes, and the social safety net is modestly expanded, it at least demonstrates that such victories are possible.

If we can do it once, then we can do it again.  That makes any win, no matter its size, an enormous victory.  

Chris Bowers :: Even small victories against corporate America are enormous

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Even small victories against corporate America are enormous | 22 comments
And this it's why it's bad (0.00 / 0)
If Democrats lose control of the House.  A Republican House makes this whole process D.O.A.
world of words (0.00 / 0)
In an America that has become increasingly dominated by moneyed interests over the past three decades...

Yes, and what does this just happen to coincide with?

Why the obituaries written up for the mass movements in the 50s, 60s and 70s of course.

That's when the liberals decided it was time to abandon community organizing and marches in the street; time instead to rely on the Democratic Party of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council pols.

And what a marvelous job they have done standing up to the "moneyed interests"; the corrupt bastards who rule the roost over in the Rpepublican Party.

Right?

What is to be done? Come on, you know damn well that sooner or later we have to stop coming into venues like this and exchanging abstractions to get the job done.

But then we are mostly just intellectuals, aren't we?

Sigh. The world of words....

Your data (0.00 / 0)
Indicates that social spending has increased from 19 to 24% of GDP from 1975 to 2009. A very reasonable and not unsubstantial increase. Furthermore, why should any form of spending increase as a percentage of GDP every year? That just makes for an unsustainable budget and further pain down the line.
So the question on the table (4.00 / 1)
would be does passage of hcr minus the public option make future REAL hcr more or less likely?

My guess is that it makes it more likely, as the '57 Civil Rights Act made the '64 Civil Righs Act more likely.

But there isn't an easy answer that I can see.

Less likely (4.00 / 3)
because people will assume that the brand label 'health care reform" is true and even if they don't the opposition will label whatever happens and whatever consequences from it as liberal. It will take a decade to even know the repercussion, and it will take even more time for the public to say "wait, this is not fully working" and then the merry go round of actually trying to obtain more reform as a legitimate issue will begin- cut to 2030.

The civil rights movement is not applicable because that really was one ongoing process. There is no ongoing movement after this on the scale of civil rights.  

[ Parent ]
Agreed: If we win this, the door is closed on health care for another 20 years, (0.00 / 0)
because most people will think the issue has been handled.  Only the 10 or 20 percent who will be hurt or simply not helped much will realize what a bad deal it is.  

This is only happening because more and more people are hurt by the current system each year, and it has reached a political critical mass.  A bad bill will help enough people to reduce the pressure.  ("I'm all right, Jack!"  "I don't want to pay for your bad decisions!")

The bad effects will be used by the R's to say:  "See, I told you it was a bad idea!"

If the progressives hold firm and insist on a robust public option, and that kills the bill, the pressure from people who want and need reform will remain and increase.  Our need for reform will not go away, and we will insist that they try again.  There is tremendous pressure to fix this system!  Let's not piss it away with a bad bill!

[ Parent ]
yeah, if we lose this, then the door is closed on health care for another 20 years (4.00 / 2)
if we do something, and it works, then we can create a snowball effect. there will be momentum to do more down the line.

that said, passing any old bill might not be a victory. if it's just a big insurance company giveaway, it will bite us in the ass.

the bill has to WORK.

Evidence? (4.00 / 2)
yeah, if we lose this, then the door is closed on health care for another 20 years

All the evidence seems to point the other way - UNLESS, you are admitting that the status quo is sustainable for two more decades.  

Do you really believe that the impetus to enact reform of the health care system will simply dry up if this particular bill in the Congress does not pass?

Even is that is what you believe, can you tell me why everyone who is pushing for the bill will just give up and sit quietly for two decades?

I see/hear this piece of conventional "wisdom" espoused over and over, but rarely hear any rationale for why such is the case. Care to enlighten me?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
because it will make the case for Republican reform (4.00 / 1)
the conventional wisdom DICTATES what's possible. right now, the conventional wisdom is that we need health reform. But if two democratic presidents fail, then the conventional wisdom shifts: Republicans need to do it.

it will make the case that the answer is not "more government", but more deregulation ("more competition"). not what Clinton and Obama did... but what Republicans have been proposing.

you'll see phony baloney solutions like "cutting frivolous lawsuits", and "opening up the markets". you might even see parts of our existing social safety net privatized.

we will see it in the 2010s... and it won't be close to 2020 before we realize just how badly Republicans have fucked things up... again.

[ Parent ]
So the door doesn't actually close (0.00 / 0)
on reform, it just puts the ball in the GOPper court. They'll have to become something other than the party of "NO!". So, fine, let's say they get the ball and start to push the kind of reform that you suggest.

Given that those are exactly the kind of reforms that have been enacted previously - After all you admit, "before we realize just how badly Republicans have fucked things up... again." - and that those programs have not worked, how hard will it be for a Democrat (progressive or otherwise) to argue against those points?

Follow the logic: GOPpers and other conservatives have prevented Democratic Party efforts at health care reform for decades and put in place a few programs of their own. During that time, the system has become worse and worse. It costs more and we get less, as can be demonstrated with actual numbers and statistics.  The truth of the matter is that the right wing has dominated the "reform" and the result is utter failure to control costs, or increase coverage. How can any candidate run on that record and win?

One way that the Democratic Party can reinvigorate the do nothing attitude on the right is to pass a healthcare bill that is so weak it fails to have any positive effect. As long as nothing is done and the blame for doing nothing is squarely put on the backs of the conservatives they will have a very hard time convincing anyone that doing nothing is the way to go.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
do the math. Obama will be neutralized for 8 years. Republicans will get their shot. And we will have to wait to prove they failed. (0.00 / 0)
Which will give the Republicans a chance to take over, if not sooner. And they will take a shot. And based on the intellectual support that they have, the conservadems, and big media's fascination with conventional wisdom, they'll likely succeed. That's another 10 years after that before we realize the impact... if not longer. Think about it: it's taken 30 years to realize that Reaganomics was a complete disaster.

I think 20 years is a pretty conservative estimate.

[ Parent ]
2012? 2016? (0.00 / 0)
What about 2010? Imagine for a moment that the current HCR bill fails to pass.

What will the main issue in the 2010 election be?

Which campaign would you rather run? The one claiming that the status quo is just fine and nothing need be done to reform the system, the one claiming to have tried very hard to pass landmark legislation that just barely failed because of the array of corporate fat cats and bonus-takers was just slightly too powerful, or the one that rejected the half-loaf and now wants to get back and re-make the bill from the left?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
History (4.00 / 2)
Truman tried for Medicare right after WWII and failed.  About 20 years later we passed Medicare and Medicaid, a huge advance.

Fast forward another 28 years or so and Clinton's plan foundered.  Around 16 years later, it's Obamacare.  

The timing seems to indicate that there are few ongoing reforms for the good but large leaps forward.  Medicare has been weakened by for-profit subsidized rip-offs.  The scalpels are out for more (see the diaries about Pete Peterson and his 30 year attack om Social Security and Medicare).

On Health Care, the pattern is get it right cause the corporate ghouls will be working 24/7 to loot it.

Get it right or wait 20 years.  The data supports bruhrabbit and danthrax.

[ Parent ]
What about the collective pressure of all that failure? (0.00 / 0)
Does that count for nothing?

It has become very apparent that the cost of health insurance is out of hand. The problem cannot be swept back under the rug as easily this time around. It is too big. Too many people have seen it.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
I don't agree (4.00 / 2)
The fact is the most important thing you needed to win here Chris was respect. You didn't really get that. So, you lost. Rules of the street.  
What's good for Wall Street is good for America? (0.00 / 0)
Expanding the social safety net is important, I agree.  It is, however, worth reflecting on whether such gains are symptomatic of a bigger, more pernicious problem: that they are under consideration only because they are profitable to Wall Street and the political party duopoly.
whoops, pushed the wrong button (0.00 / 0)
In that light, victory "over" corporate America is a bizarre announcement when an entire industry is on the cusp of having the purchase of their product mandated.
[ Parent ]
This is so much nonsense (0.00 / 0)
Sorry but you are simply wrong. You've been drinking the same "everything is wonderful kool aid" that the Dems live on in DC. This is just the start of the process to let the progressives know that they need to shut up and live with the loss of the public option.  Its the way it always works.  The Senate bill without a strong and usable public option is just another Corporate entitlement - they have stripped out all the good parts including the repeal of the Insurance Industry's Anti Trust exemption and now what's left will be watered down till its totally useless.  Since the Insurance Companies own the Republican Party and enough of the Democratic Party to control the process and since Obama is a total and complete sellout and spineless coward its silly to believe much will happen to actually change things.  Its all very sad but quite predictable.

The Senate Bill, which will be the foundation for anything that heads to the Big O's desk, is a fraud and a giveaway to the Insurance Companies and shows how badly broken our Government is and what massive cowards and how utterly corrupt the Dems and Obama are.  It will not control cost, it won't actually require Insurance Companies to take on all applicants, in all probability by the time it passes it won't even protect consumers from being dumped. Its a fraud and we need to stop it by getting the few remaining decent Democrats to kill it dead in its tracks.  Sure the Obama Presidency will be wounded but who cares - its a joke already. Any progressive that expects real reform out of this White House is simply delusional.  Howard Dean is right - without a real public option its time to kill the bill.

Snark (0.00 / 0)
You say "obama ia a total and incompetent sell out."  Yhis can't be.  Either he is a total sellout but very competent at it or he is just incompetent.  Or some combination that is not total and competent.

The basics are right.  Unwrap the private market crap mythology and the public has no reason to overpay to radically expand for-profit health care insurance. Not 30%.  Not a penny.  Do it cheap and do it right.  It's our money as W said.  Powerful attack on the insurance lobby.

Obama IMO seems competent at electoral politics but less sure at governing and terrible at selecting high level officials unless he wants the creeps.  I figure he is egotistical, self centered, selfish, not a team player and cares too much for the approval of the corporates, the high rollers, and the creeps.

He's turned out a little better than I thought on  health care and a lot worse on the less important aspect of Afghanistan.  He's immeasurably worse than I conceived possible on budget and government spending during the worst economy in 70 years.  I don't care if he has to rip Ben Nelson ten new ones, Nelson and Collins and Obama screwed the pooch big time on the stimulus.

If he wants to salvage anything for 2010 and 2012 he needs to get jobs and get them in a hurry.

 

[ Parent ]
I did not say Obama was an "incopetent sellout" I said he was a "complete sellout and spineless coward" (0.00 / 0)
These are very different things! Its important to keep the record straight.

One thought though - you said "He's turned out a little better than I thought on health care" - wow, congrats on that one.  You had your expectations set fairly low and he certainly meet them.  I, on the other hand, was silly and expected that the Big O would at least try and do right by us but no he sold us out to big Pharma and the Insurance Companies from the very start.  Now we know - we elected a weasel to the presidency.  

Can somebody give him a spine for Christmas?

[ Parent ]
Spine (0.00 / 0)
Sounds good to me.  

My bar, alas was set at almost ground level.

[ Parent ]
Way to redraw the line, Chris. (4.00 / 1)
Instead, this is about whether or not progressives can win any fight to expand the social safety net over the long-term by any amount anymore.

Never mind that the bill is no longer progressive.  Never mind that it does more to prop up and calcify the health insurance industry.  Now the question is, can we get even a few breadcrumbs?  Really?

No, Chris.  That's a dumb way to look at it.  There is very little if anything progressive about this legislation, and rather than defending it, we should be attacking it from the left.  By defending it, we're saying that this is progressive legislation, and so when it inevitably fails the people, the people will blame progressives rather than the conservatives who rightly deserve the scorn.

It's okay to take credit for the few (very, very few) good things in there, but the bill as a whole is not worth our support.

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.

Even small victories against corporate America are enormous | 22 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox