The Politics of Health Insurance Reform – Two Sides of the Story

by Stack Kenny

In the preface of his 2006 book Failed States, professor and critic Noam Chomsky suggests that among all the problems facing the United States today, including war, health care, economics, social injustice, and environmental catastrophe, perhaps the greatest threat to the survival of our country is the total disconnect between American politicians and the population they supposedly serve.

As we watch bureaucrats shuffle back and forth through the revolving door between government and industry jobs, padding their pockets with taxpayer money as they go, it has become difficult for most Americans to believe that millionaire politicians actually have the interests of the public in mind.

This skepticism dominates the modern American psyche. Whether one is a
frightened tea-party right-winger, a militant conspiracy-minded leftist,
or one of the millions of people in between, poll after poll shows
unprecedented low ratings of confidence and a high disdain for our
leaders. Yet these very same politicians remain oblivious to the disdain
and continue to pat themselves on the back for all the great work they
do, trying with “newspeak” jargon and Madison Avenue one-liners to
convince us of their dedication to the people.

Thrusting the theater of health insurance debate front and center into
the news, politicians wrestle for power and control over its success or
failure, giving no attention to the even greater problems at hand:
endless war, escalating poverty, catastrophic environmental damage, and
the theft of our treasury by banks and corporations. Fierce political
energy has been spent debating the costs of a bill which at best offers
only limited reform and could easily be paid for by cutting expenditures
to the military in less than one year.

Meanwhile, insurance companies see a quick buck and are willing to trade
in a few despicable practices to get hold of millions of new clients
who would require little medical reimbursement. There is good reason to
think, as with most other political issues distinctly American, that the
profit motive is still at the forefront of any bill coming out of
Washington today.

Corporate chiefs and politicians treat the public as ignorant, easily
deceived fools. They tell us that the trillions of tax dollars given to a
half-dozen giant banks were actually awarded to protect us from
economic meltdown (with no proof offered). They say the savage wars we
engage in all over the planet are only to save us from the powerful
Taliban (not to make money for the private trillion-dollar war
industry).

They insist that the non-signing by American authorities of the
Copenhagen Treaty, designed to reduce damaging carbon emissions, was
only to protect American consumers from high energy bills (not to
protect energy companies’ profits). And now they say the new “historic”
healthcare bill, renamed the health insurance reform bill (because even
Mr. Obama has admitted there is a difference between health care and
health insurance), will finally turn the tide in favor of all those who
have been previously abused by the uncontrolled greed of the
insurance/medical industry.

After months of wrangling, rewording, and repackaging, most Americans,
myself included, don’t know what to think about this confusing new
headline-grabbing bill. But the insurance and pharmaceutical companies
know what to think: stock prices for these companies are soaring in the
expectation of greater profits to be made after the passage of the bill.

The reason for Wall Street’s enthusiasm is the back-room deals Obama and
his aides worked out with these companies even before the charade
began. In exchange for a few concessions, which most people would
consider common sense (e.g., children can no longer be excluded from
insurance coverage because of pre-existing conditions at birth; policies
cannot be cancelled when a policy-holder gets sick), Obama apparently
agreed to push for three major components to the bill: to make sure no
public option was included, to keep the prices of medicine in the U.S.
higher than anywhere else on the planet, and to demand mandatory
insurance coverage of all Americans to cover any losses incurred by new
regulation.

Yet, with the exception of a few crazies and despite false claims to the
contrary by House and Senate leaders of both parties, most Americans
not only preferred a public option, but agreed that Medicare, a
single-payer, nonprofit system, should be extended to everyone. As
lawmakers congratulate themselves for tossing us a bone, Chomsky’s
theory of disconnect still prevails.

The mandate that Americans have to buy insurance, with the threat of
additional personal taxes on those who refuse, is itself an immoral and
unjust imperative. This section of the bill is obviously aimed at a
younger working class, still healthy, who are least likely to need
health care, but whose premiums would help pay for the uninsured at
emergency rooms and clinics.

There is no acknowledgment that these young people represent the biggest
percentage of the unemployed affected by today’s faltering economy, or
that they are struggling to make ends meet with low-paying jobs, trying
to pay off over-priced student loans, living at home and broke. Nor is
there mention of the uninsured working poor who trade food for medicine
in a cruel struggle for survival.

All this being said, there is another side to the story which even this
skeptical writer must acknowledge: Yes, perhaps this is the foot in the
door, so desperately needed, that finally allows us to push past our
government’s lame inability to create true health care reform.
Even Franklin Roosevelt gave up trying to move Congress against the
almighty power of the insurance industry. Recognizing that the inclusion
of national health insurance would likely lead to defeat of Social
Security, he dropped it altogether to ensure Social Security’s passage.

Could Obamacare be the crack in the armor that has prevented healthcare
reform for almost a century? For creating the possibility alone, maybe
this bill is a “historic” moment for America. Many of its provisions
don’t go into effect until 2014, and the few honest healthcare-reform
politicians say they voted for the bill, with all its imperfections,
because they believed it might be the basis for further amendments to
make the bill better in the future. Some have—Amen—already begun talking
about the need to insert a renewed public option into the bill at a
later date.

Of course, the opposite might be true as well: now that the politicians
have congratulated themselves on all their “hard work” and have perhaps
convinced the American people of their success, who’s to stop them from
going back in and taking out the good parts of the bill? Either way, the
insurance companies will still be hauling in the big bucks through the
gouging of a uniquely American “Sickness Industry.”

I recently witnessed an interesting debate between stalwart politician
of the people, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh), and stalwart advocate for
people’s rights, Ralph Nader. After great pressure from the White House,
Kucinich had finally agreed to give up his opposition and vote for the
bill, despite its lack of a public option that he had insisted was
essential. As he claimed, “I was the last one standing. I couldn’t
interfere with the progress of history, the possibility that something
further might come later out of this bill.”

Nader took a much more ideological stand: any bill that gives more power
and money to the Insurance/Big Pharma/Medical Industry will only push
the United States deeper into a hole of being the only developed nation
in the world allowing businessmen to make medical decisions.

These two men—one a politician, the other not—admire and respect each
other, and both have solid credentials as selfless leaders for the
rights of common people. Yet they were on opposite sides of the issue. I
found myself agreeing with both arguments.

If you are thirsty and dying from drought, you don’t refuse a small sip
of water, even if the offer comes from someone who has the means to give
you a full glass. Yet here is the truth: while the politicians wheel
and deal and posture in front of the American people, the horrific
stories of family and friends who are denied health care by insurance
companies continue to make a mockery of this land.

Only time will tell if this insurance reform bill will make a difference
to the good people of our country, or whether it will be only one more
tragicomedy offered by a group of corrupt legislators with no connect to
the basic needs of humanity.