In an effort to gather my thoughts, I have tried to make some order out of our new health care bill, as passed by the Senate. A lot of reading follows, but it has much value.
On one hand, with 60 Democratic votes in the Senate, the difficult time this legislation faced before passage shows what a tough issue health care is for this country. It should not be so, but it is. Shoot. I really should be five feet, eight inches. But alas, I am merely almost four feet, eleven inches. Such is life. So be it. Even with majority leadership in Congress and a sitting Democratic President, this was not an easy feat.
On the other hand, the politicos believe that all the compromise necessary to ensure enactment will not matter in the long run; this bill is just the first stepping stone to a system of universal coverage. I am not yet convinced because with a current majority in both Houses, we may never have such strength for a long time to come. This bill might be as good as we can get for another 20 years.
On my brighter days, I appreciate this landmark legislation as the structural foundation of a health care system that may provide decent, equal and cost-efficient care. On my darker days, I am as angry as hell that the decent, equality and cost efficiency was sacrificed in favor of the private insurers’ bottom lines. Allow me to provide two view points on this issue, both by respected journalists. The first is in support of this bill, although not entirely enthusiastic, by Paul Krugman:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/opinion/18krugman.html?scp=3&sq=PAUL%20KRUGMAN&st=cse
The second article is by David Brooks. While he comes to a different conclusion than Krugman, Brooks also is kind of on the fence:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/opinion/18brooks.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=brooks&st=cse
I will let you pick your poison and decide for yourself which side of the coin you prefer. Meanwhile, there are a few glaring examples of hypocrisy and self- interest that I cannot ignore. Both Senator Landrieu and Senator Nelson finally voted “yea” on this bill only after they were literally bought. Both states will receive hundreds of millions of dollars for their Medicaid expansion. Also, Nelson won major concessions to limit abortion rights. Thus, he must feel pretty powerful now that his strong-arm reaches half of America’s population: the women. Both of these politicians are dirt. Here they are, major critics of health care because it expands the role of government too far into American life. Additionally, they believe that the costs of health reform are nothing short of catastrophic for our country. Yet they both accepted the huge funding for the government program of Medicaid for their own states. Isn’t their acceptance of these “gifts” completely antithetical to their strongly held position of less government and less costs? They are whores, the lot of them.
And everyone and their mother state as their first accolade of this bill that 30 million uninsured Americans will now have insurance. What they are not so vocal about is the fact that the bulk of these people will get health care mainly through Medicaid. The care offered by Medicaid does not nearly approximate the standard of care our federally elected officials receive through their plans, the cost of which we pick up for them. I hold firm in my principle that until all Americans are afforded equal access and levels of care, i.e. universal coverage, the whole system is rotten. Separate but equal: been there, done that.
Another oh-so-obvious inconsistency that has surfaced during this debate is overwhelmingly depressing: the GOP lacks any real concern for governing. Instead, their overriding concern is for the survival and strength of their own party, which in and of itself includes a healthy dose of individual self-interest. Just yesterday, Senator Tom Coburn just about called for a death in the Senate, like perhaps the ancient and infirm Senator Robert Byrd, so that the bill would not have the 60 votes to pass:
Further disconcerting is that the party on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, are not too far behind in their denial of what is good and right in favor of their own welfare.
None of this is news. There are those observers who believe that President Obama is running out of political capital:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-sullivan/president-obama-loses-his_b_395835.html
But more typical are rationalizations of this Senate vote. Paul Krugman blogged acceptance of this bill:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/the-wysiwyg-president/
As did Andrew Sullivan, saying that the bill we got was the bill President Obama had promised us:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/12/the-bill-obama-promised.html
I guess my take on all of this is much disappointment buoyed by some hope. It doesn’t much matter for me personally: I am at that stage of my life where I have savings to cover the annual premium increases of 30% that keep on coming plus, in six years, I will be eligible for Medicare. But what of the younger generations? I still worry so much about them. The saddest thing is that they will not even know what they are missing because they never had the comfort and security of just and affordable coverage against which to gauge any recent incarnation of health care.
As a result, my battle continues to educate what it is they really are missing and what it is we should continue to fight for.








