Glenn Greenwald Hits The Healthcare Debate Nail On The Head
Many of the commenters I admire most have been saying that the Left/Right dichotomy is inadequate to explain current dynamics and that Insider/Outsider along with Incrementalist/Radical are better descriptors. Glenn Greenwald notes this pitch perfect:
One finds [corporatism] in far more than just economic policy, and it’s about more than just letting corporations do what they want. It’s about affirmatively harnessing government power in order to benefit and strengthen those corporate interests and even merging government and the private sector. In the intelligence and surveillance realms, for instance, the line between government agencies and private corporations barely exists. Military policy is carried out almost as much by private contractors as by our state’s armed forces. Corporate executives and lobbyists can shuffle between the public and private sectors so seamlessly because the divisions have been so eroded. Our laws are written not by elected representatives but, literally, by the largest and richest corporations. At the level of the most concentrated power, large corporate interests and government actions are basically inseparable.
The health care bill is one of the most flagrant advancements of this corporatism yet, as it bizarrely forces millions of people to buy extremely inadequate products from the private health insurance industry — regardless of whether they want it or, worse, whether they can afford it (even with some subsidies). In other words, it uses the power of government, the force of law, to give the greatest gift imaginable to this industry — tens of millions of coerced customers, many of whom will be truly burdened by having to turn their money over to these corporations — and is thus a truly extreme advancement of this corporatist model. It’s undeniably true that the bill will also do some genuine good, as it will help many people who can’t get coverage now to get it (though it will also severely burden many people with compelled, uncontrolled premiums and will potentially weaken coverage for millions as well). If one judges the bill purely from the narrow perspective of coverage, a rational and reasonable (though by no means conclusive) case can be made in its favor. But if one finds this creeping corporatism to be a truly disturbing and nefarious trend, then the bill will seem far less benign.
As I’ve noted before, this growing opposition to corporatism — to the virtually absolute domination of our political process by large corporations — is one of the many issues that transcend the trite left/right drama endlessly used as a distraction. The anger among both the left and right towards the bank bailout, and towards lobbyist influence in general, illustrates that.
And he says exactly what I’ve been saying in private about what is the worst aspect of Obama and the Democrats thus far.
It’s true that the people who are angry enough to attend tea parties are being exploited and misled by GOP operatives and right-wing polemicists, but many of their grievences about how Washington is ignoring their interests are valid, and the Democratic Party has no answers for them because it’s dependent upon and supportive of that corporatist model. That’s why they turn to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh; what could a Democratic Party dependent upon corporate funding and subservient to its interests possibly have to say to populist anger?
In the last few weeks I am starting to notice a huge increase in the complaints and disappointment amongst my solidly liberal yet nonpartisan friends. For much of the year I’ve been arguing precisely as Greenwald and they couldn’t disagree with me on any stance but had an emotional attachment to Obama and faith that he would change things. That veil seems to have fallen off and I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama’s ratings plummet precipitously in the next few months.
For my own money I still have confidence that Obama is capable of bringing about leadership and long term guidance, but that the corporatist status quo is preventing that at every turn; it doesn’t help that the vast majority of Obama’s top advisors have long been major players in perpetuating and expanding this dynamic. That is the root of my opposition to the health care bill: even though it would help millions of people in the short term, it would expand the corporatist state, do nothing to cap long term costs and further degrade social cohesiveness.
Update: Balloon Juice’s DougJ …
As I see it, the two political reasons to oppose passage of the bill is that (a) by forcing people to buy crappy insurance, it will piss voters off and (b) passing this now puts off the possibility of more serious reform. I have no idea about (a), but I it seems to me that the bill going down in flames will put off the possibility of any reform for even longer.
If, at this point, the choice is between a crappy bill that will improve health care for millions of people (at too high a cost to them, yes, and without reining in insurance companies as much as it should) and a catastrophic political defeat for Democrats and for the cause of health care reform, I’m going to take the crappy bill.
Several of his commenters gently disagree…to put it mildly.
23 Responses to “Glenn Greenwald Hits The Healthcare Debate Nail On The Head”
Don't always agree with Greenwald, but I respect him greatly. I think he is the most credible voice on the left. I have to agree with him here.
It's a pretty damning assessment, but it's hard to argue with his points here. The entire health care debate has certainly become more about strengthening the insurance industry then it has been about improving access and quality of care to the average American.
I'm starting a small business and after this passes there is still NO HOPE of finding affordable coverage for my family(my wife's job provides our current coverage). I'm 30 and in great health, but I'd be asked to spend at least $1,000 a month for basic care for my wife and I.
Obama is fond of saying “if we were starting over this is how I would do it.” Nearly all the times he says that I agree with what comes out.
I disagree with almost all his decisions made in the current context. A cynic would argue that his line is just a line meant to keep people placated by fawning about the Man instead of his Actions, but I'm not quite there yet: I think that it is his personality to be an incrementalist within the system and I fully agree that the changes that need to be made would wreck that system and lead to immense short term pain (I believe we would be far better off in the long run though).
On one hand I have confidence he has the capability, but on the other hand I am pessimistic he'll use it until it's too late.
Even before he ran for president I predicted he'd get elected and perpetuate the status quo but that it would fall down around him. I said it was then that would begin his real Presidency, and predicted it'd happen sometime in 2010.
Once again Greenwald separates the wheat from the chaff. Corporatism, in it's usurping of democracy as designed and envisioned by the founders, aided by the spineless and conscienceless politicians in Washington has been taking a devastating toll on our country. Those who have had both eyes wide open these past couple decades while watching this decline have a pretty good idea of what has been lost, and it is a tragedy.
Josh Marshall printed this email from one of his readers:
I added some emphasis.
Question: Why don't the Dems do some good instead of just talking about doing good?
Example: They have a 60 vote Senate. Why not pass a bill that would just address the expiring Cobra problem.? Is this rocket science? Would the Reps oppose this and other smaller bills that would have bi-partisan and common sense approval? Of course not. Buying improving (HCI) health care improvement now, these “improvements” could then be rolled into a overall bill, hopefully with minimized grandstanding by the publicity loving party leaders. After a while getting along a little could become a habit; practice makes perfect.
And, I think many liberals are looking for a partial scapegoat, and big corp, big union and
obstructing people like Dean and Joe, hide the admin and congress in the fog.
Why people defend this health care bill is unfathomable to me. That having a really bad bill is better than none does not register. At an economic level, it forces consumers to take otherwise discretionary spending, in a consumer driven economy, and spend it on a government mandated purchase. And, that is in addition to the issue of whether some of those consumers can afford the mandated purchase. If not, even more cash is diverted from the consumption economy.
The thesis of this article about corporatism is exactly correct. Just as Bush/Cheney invited the oil companies in to set energy policy or consorted with Haliburton on no-bid contracts in Iraq, Obama et al invited big insurance, PHARM, AHA, ABA and AMA to the table on health care. We were told it was for buy-in. From Bush/Cheney we got $4/ gallon gas and $100 cases of Coca Cola in Iraq, and from Obama et al, we get this health care debacle.
One point made in the article needs to be emphasized. We have reached a point where special interests not only influence legislation, they actually write it and hand it off to a friendly legislator to introduce. The extent of corporate, and other major interest, influence has become unhealthy for our democracy/republic. Unfortunately, I see no groundswell among elected officials to address the problem and, in fact, see a growing reliance, near dependence, upon it.
I think that reader would be sorely disappointed over the long run. Unless their situation changed drastically in the next few years there would be a very strong possibility that they'd get the rug pulled out in a few years. I empathize with their situation and have many friends in the same boat (and have helped several of them out) but I strongly believe that both health care and joblessness are long term systemic problems that this bill — and to a large extent the stimulus bill — actually contribute to the severity of.
Mikkel–
I'm just putting an alternative argument out here.
I don't claim to be a prophet.
Tidbits–
People defend this bill because they don't think it's as bad as you do. Undoubtedly everybody understands how compromised it is. Probably nobody thinks it's wonderful.
We live in an imperfect world.
Kevin Drum makes the argument in favor:
Drum continues:
I know, but I am seeing an increasing “argument” that consists solely of pointing out the immediate desperation. The reader isn't as bad as the guy that Joe just posted, in which he claims that Dean and supporters don't understand anything about the real world because they are wine sipping elitists, but it really doesn't argue at all about efficacy.
Whether it's jobs or health care or energy I have repeatedly said that we need to spend a lot more money to alleviate current misery while we restructure on a fundamental level. The major messaging is a false dichotomy between “sure it isn't perfect and will have to be fixed on a major level in the future but we can help some people now” and “let's not do anything.” I am trying to confront that messaging by hammering home that they can be tackled and analyzed separately.
Thanks for your perspective, and that of Kevin Drum, GS.
Guess I disagree. My take is that people who support what is coming through congress are looking with blinders on. That is, they see only “something” on health care and not the impact on the broader economy or the impact on personal freedom that mandates entail. Granted, my concern with personal freedom and fiscal responsibilty take me out of the progressive column on many issues. This is one.
And, contrary to Drum, I do see this legislation as producing a net harm. And I disagree with many of his other points: “brings down insurance rates” don't think so…there's actually very little to control premiums here; “moderately priced insurance to tens of millions of uninsured” – rose colored glasses… doesn't take into account the non-subsidized portion of premiums they're forced to pay when they are already financially marginal; “pre-existing conditions” – but without premium cost controls…you can get pre-existing coverage now, the cost where I live runs $40,000 to $50,000/year and that won't be changed by the legislation – people will be priced out instead of denied outright. I could go on…especially on the failure to make serious efforts at stemming systemic costs in the healthcare system.
Well, sorry to be so disagreeable, but sometimes the cure is worse than the disease and that may be the case with this healthcare “reform”. You (and Drum) are correct about the influence of special interests. Maybe that's what really needs to be reformed so worthy legislation can pass instead of legislation that pads the pockets and interests of the power oligarchy.
Yup:
As Dean points out
Mikkel–
I understand: you think it could be better. I also think it could be better.
But I don't see any actual, practical mechanism that is going to make it better. To that extent, the dichotomy between nothing and something imperfect that can be fixed as time passes but also produce some help now seems accurate.
I agree with you that the wine-sipping elitist theory is tired stupid conventional wisdom of the type always being pushed by some distinguished (rolling my eyes here) journalist. But what you called “the immediate desperation” isn't going to go anywhere without some actual intervention.
Clarification (no edit button today): When I refer to health insurance with coverage for pre-existing conditions costing $40,000-50,000/year, that is for family coverage, not individual coverage which may be closer to the $20,000 Mikkel refers to. My source on the family coverage with pre-existing coverage is personal as I recently considered changing companies and wanted to cover my wife's pre-existing condition. Result: go from $16,000/year family coverage to $41,000/year family coverage. Nothing in the bill changes that.
tidbits, obviously the precise pre-existing condition will vary the premium, but my ex-wife has RA and I still pay all her bills just so that I can avoid the possibility of becoming a wealthy man.
You're in AZ, right? I have a financial advisory group in the 5000 block of N 40th (named after the funny mountain there) and they were able to place coverage for her with CIGNA AZ for about $9600 a year. Might be worth shopping some more.
I guess Dems prefer to do nothing concrete.
Thanks CO. We're fine. Just stayed with the ins we had at the time of her accident which continues to cover and can't add pre-existing. Most of the premium increases to date have to do with my “advancing age”. I just can't seem to stop crossing those actuarial divides.
Don't see your group in the Scottsdale Yellow Pages (which covers Phoenix/Paradise Valley), but will check online & may make contact on other opportunities.
CO -
Found the “Funny Mountain” Financial Group & looked through the website. May have our controller give a call on employee benefits issues for a business where we're looking to make a change.
No admonitions from editorial staff, please. I am not off subject. Think of it this way. This is the sort of thing you have to do to accomplish anything in the absence of meaningful government reform.
I realize that several commenters here disagree with me about this and nothing will change anyone's mind. But I'd still like to bang my bongo one more time.
Ezra Klein: Private insurance in theory and in practice:
He's not only right about other issues, but with this issue, notably grasps the incrementalist-radical (it should be a hyphen) distinction. Note that a lesson remains not to be too radical, not to overreach. The radical alternative of note here (Medicare for All) is appealing in its simplicity (and having precedents already established for it), but the overreach (and the nature of those doing the reaching) is problematic.
“…you can get pre-existing coverage now, the cost where I live runs $40,000 to $50,000/year and that won't be changed by the legislation “
Assuming you are (still) in Arizona, that's an improvement over when I was there. I have long had a pre-existing condition, and am familiar with all the fun and games associated with this. When I was in Phoenix, I originally remained on my Washington state Blue Cross policy. That state's organization ended coverage for people out of state (because already, back in the mid-1990s, it was concerned about gaining “magnet” status from outsiders), and in the rounds of looking around in Arizona, I was normally denied (including with laughter or just abrupt hanging up by the other party, on the telephone) due to having a pre-existing condition, and others wanted a fortune; I ended up paying, for a short time, $740+ a month (this was in 1998), before I moved out of state (among other reasons, due to the health insurance and cost problem — which my girlfriend there reluctantly understood, but didn't like, either). My previous stop was in Michigan, was is a “guaranteed issue” state. An individual policy there was low-mid $300s per month, recently raised by Blue Cross there to $400 per month. (Blue Cross made the news there for, among other things, high executive pay; many Blue Cross organizations have gone for-profit or have emulated other companies in order “to be competitive” with respect to executive compensation and to pleasing investors.) I'm now in another state, where Blue Cross will underwrite new policies (and those that are transferred from out of state); the risk pool here will be around $400 a month (which is a lot of money, but by my standards related to experience, is a quite reasonable form and level of extortion). I have a colleague here who at his last location was paying $900+ a month for an individual (high-risk) policy.
There is plenty of reform that could be aimed at such situations and related situations (I have always put myself behind or beneath others and feel much worse for those, for example, with AIDS or cancer who are often in worse shape than I've ever been in), as well as with “community rating” of insurance (forming one large pool) or dealing with insurers as highly regulated utilities using the utility (power and water) model, for example, and other things I and others have long described, but we have been supplanted from the start by those whose preferences are for other agenda items and who have taken a much more emotional as well as political, and a much honest, approach to health reform than people like I have.
“I guess Dems prefer to do nothing concrete.”
They have, from the start, avoided honest, plain reform, because they have sought other things instead (not only federal takeover of health care but scoring political points among cheaper members of the electorate, for example). Compounding this has been their ineptitude and the bad nature they often have.
The interesting thing now will be what the reaction is like. Will the unrealistic, angry children be too often still the lefty and Demmie role model of note? They had the chance to do so much with reform and wrecked their own effort — on this issue specifically, as well as wrecking themselves in general through their misconduct throughout the year. They forfeited (wiser) public confidence, by their own actions.
What may be entertaining now is how they handle their setback. Will they self-immolate and not bother to pass legislation now? (It's still possible Obama might engage in pathetic posturing and veto a “truly bad” bill, too, don't forget, though the odds are against his vetoing anything, as a rule, that has 'health care” stamped on it, especially if it's before the end of the year.) Will they just throw tantrums and do nothing next year? (Actually, doing nothing next year is preferable to their doing more wrongful things as they did this year!)