by jhwygirl
Most absolutely there are some qualifiers in there, like that the above statement doesn’t include all of those in government, just as it doesn’t include all elected officials. But overall, the number of people that have to be dying from something before the government will actually take action has to be enough that it is economically affecting a larger economic sector – one that can’t be isolated to keep those dead-and-dying in a controlled and identifiable environment.
One needed look further than Libby: Asbestos is still legal, up to 1%, even though it is an established carcinogen. That 1% is something that was lobbied heavily by (yep, you guessed it) W.R. Grace, back decades ago.
Need another example? What about e.coli? Food industry processors fight further regulation, and the U.S.’s willingness to add additional inspectors out in the fields and in processing plants is still pretty weak. Many watchdogs have said that we need more and that we need better oversight and regulation, but until a whole bunch of people start dying, gubmint ain’t gonna fund anything more, and gubmit would rather provide more paper literature on cooking food temperatures than protection on the front end.
So when I read this NYTimes article last night, titled “President Pushes Health Plan as an Economic Boon,” it made me smile.
If I remember correctly from my speech days, there are three arguments to sway that can be made in speech: ethos (ethical), pathos (emotional), and logos (logical). So far, much of the advocacy has leaned towards the ethical and pathos side.
When two weeks ago the estimate came back from the GAO for the bill on 10 years of national health care reform, and said estimate was $1.8 trillion, the reaction was “How do we get that down to $1 trillion?” An arbitrary number – why $1 trillion? What made that number magical?
Meanwhile, what I wanted to know was how much would it cost to not reform health care? How much would it cost to not provide single-payer? How much would it cost to not provide a strong public option?
What is the $ figure cost to our economic sector for 10 years of not doing anything?
And I’m not talking about how many more people are going to die, or how many more people will be forced into bankruptcy. God knows, that is a logical argument to make for me, but then again, one would be preaching to the choir to use those types of arguments on me.
We – we who want to see health care reform – we who want to see single-payer or a strong public option – don’t need to be convincing ourselves with all these heart-tugging stories. I’m sorry…that might sound harsh, but until we start translating the cost of not doing reform into the cost to the economy – in real dollars….we aren’t going to budge over this line in the sand that has been drawn by our elected officials in Washington and industry and PhRMA that was drawn to protect them from us.
Get it?
How much more of our high-income-earning manufacturing base has to head off to Mexico and Canada and China and India and elsewhere before we realize that American’s can’t survive on Burger King and Wal*Mart jobs? How much more can our economy stand to have premiums go up (9% alone, last year – a year when inflation was essentially 0%) until the government implodes upon itself providing benefits to its very own employees? How much more can taxpayers afford additional taxes to pay for those benefits? Benefits that they won’t enjoy – taxes to pay for government employees?
That’s the argument I’d like to see more focus on. Now – I’m not saying that an emotional argument isn’t going to have some success – Lord knows that we’ve all seen Baucus holding Les Skramstad’s photo enough times to know that it had some effect on him – but even then, where did that leave Libby?
One of the goals of an emotional argument, I think, is to shame someone into doing the right thing.
It should be pretty crystal now – we aren’t going to shame these people in Washington into doing anything.
With barely the loudness of mouse, the American Medical Association announced yesterday that it was open to government-funded health care options. That’s a switch from their public position just a few short months ago.
And the day before that, Wal*Mart (the nation’s largest employer – and what does that say about us….but I digress, briefly) announced that backed a government mandate on health care insurance. Frankly – Wal*Mart has been gearing up for this, adding clinics in some stores, and providing those cheap made-in-India – prescriptions, positioning itself to profit on a new framework for health care.
See – someone’s going to make a profit? Free-marketeers like Ayn Rand should be so pleased!
Keep the heat up. Keep calling Baucus and Tester and (yep) Rehberg. It’s massive wall to move, but it’s budging.
Peace.
-
Recent Comments
Mark Tokarski on Various & Sundry for the… Lucky on Land Board Attempts to Buy Sil… Big Swede on Land Board Attempts to Buy Sil… jhwygirl on National Homeless Person… Lizard on National Homeless Person…
July 3, 2009 at 1:12 pm
I think we are so basically cooked as a country that reform in any meaningful sense is quite impossible. But I admire your optimism. But as Steve Kelly reminds us, we have to deal with the puppet masters and not the puppets. Rather than holding signs outside of Baucus’s office, we should be demanding to be let into Blue Cross Blue Shield, talk to their cherry-pickers, their marketing people, get them on record. New West too – isn’t that 90% of our market?
I wrote a piece on the use of power in influencing congress – not money, but power. I’ll do you the honor of not self-promoting, but hope you understand that Baucus is either under incredible stress or he is simply not with you. I suspect a kind of Stockholm Syndrome, where he is so helpless in the face of power (for unknown reasons) that he has simply got his mind right.
That is, after all, how we deal with cognitive dissonance – we get our minds right. Many people in Washington want to do the right thing, but cannot.
July 3, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Optimism? Did you read the piece? At least the headline?
And what is it with this “we” bullshit? You’ve been down at Baucus’s office picketing? Somehow I doubt it. How is Colorado Springs, BTW?
Baucus as victim? You ain’t getting that here, but you’ll find how I might feel about that in this post somewhere around where Burkland and “the real mike” kick in, in the comments section.
Mark – we get it. We all get it. You hate Baucus. That’s fine – but right now, hating on Baucus ain’t gonna get us even one inch closer to health care reform. I suggest you move on from that for now and use your intellect and mastery of the English language (no snark there, buddy) and work on explaining to the naysayers why health care is necessary.
Please.
July 3, 2009 at 7:45 pm
I live in Bozeman. We are moving to Boulder (Colo Springs is the home of Dr. Dobson). Timing is proving to be a problem.
At the time of the picketing at Max’s office, we were in Yellowstone National Park. Otherwise, I would have been there, as I too seek pointlessness.
And year, you have personalized this. It’s about Max. It’s not about Democrats, the real purpose of the party, the way party faithful are manipulated. It’s becuase I hate Max. I don’t even know the guy.
I tried to explain to you why Democrats behave the way they do, why they pretend to be progressives to get elected, and then turn on you. In Baucus’s case, he’s so blase’ about diddling you that he hardly tries anymore.
My purpose, which has to be filtered through the natural turfnocentrinism of Democrats, is that you will not get health care reform until you treat Democrats like Republicans, organize against them, and pressure them just as you would Rehberg. I supported Nader, perfectly within my rights, and you demonized me. You said Democrats were the only reasonable answer. now you know they are not. Max is the poster boy for Republican Democrats. You voted for him, right?
Generic you.
July 3, 2009 at 11:41 pm
I’ve never personalized this…and I’ve never went after you over Nader…hell, I’ve never given Nader any attention at all.
When you lump me in the “you” you are talking about, you, Mark Tokarski, are way off-base. I’ve never said shit to you or about you regarding Nader.
Progressives and Democrats – and really, Mark, you can’t lump all of ‘em into one group, there are always qualifiers – ARE organizing against Democrats. Have you heard about The Whip Project? They’ve gotten two Democrats committed so far…and they’ve only been at it a little over a week.
Funny how you will demonized me for voting for Baucus when you cry about the people who allegedly demonized you for voting for Nader. Isn’t that a bit hypocritical? Just a little?
Again Mark – you’ve offered no real solution or suggestion to the problems you identify…and yet here we are in a process that is moving along. I mean, what would you do? A coup? Is that going to happen?
Sometimes change has to happen within government’s existing framework. You don’t appear to even acknowledge the framework, broken as it is. You want to throw it out, far as I can tell – I’m thinking it can be repaired tweeked renovated.
And as far as criticism – you were well outspoken in support of Obama if I recall…and, unless I’m missing something, I’ve yet to see you acknowledge or be critical of him in his role so far in this health care reform process.
So all’s good with Obama, even though he only recently came out in support of a public option. Obama isn’t worthy of any criticism?
Again, Mark – your hate for Baucus isn’t working towards reform. It only draws time and energy away from the topic at hand, which is health care. That’s actually trollish, right?
Put that hate of Baucus aside for a few months and use the very good skills you have towards explaining why health care reform is needed. Baucus doesn’t give a shit that you hate him. You are getting that, aren’t you?
Please. We need you.
July 4, 2009 at 8:21 am
You seem as obtuse as you accuse me of being. When the ultimate problem is the fact that that one party masquerades as two (I don’t care if progressives are submersed in this structure – it only renders them ineffective, likely the intent), then pursuing solutions within that structure will only yield disastrous results. So your activities, and those of others, in seeking the ultimate solution through the existing structure will likely yield what those who put Baucus in office want: 1) Subsidy for health insurance companies, and 2) rigid laws that require that where health insurance companies are not directly subsidized by government, that private citizens be forced to buy their products. Your insistence that we walk down the path with the office holders in attempting to find a solutioin to our problems through and ilusary system of give and take only hastens this solution.
I am but one voice, and if you need me, as you say you do, then you need to listen. You have to organize outside the structure that has been provided you. You have to fight both Democrats and Republicans, inlcuding Obama. His words are a sweet siren song – those that you must heed come from Rahm Emanuel, who has told Senators that he doesn’t care about a public option. Emanuel is a DLC pro-war Democrat-Republican appointed to the most important post in the Obama Administration the day after the election. Ignore that at your own peril.
And apparently you missed the words “generic you”. I deliberately tried to avoid personalizing this.
What would I do? I spelled it out in other places LITW and ECW – bow to power where it is entrenched and cannot be dislodged. That would be the workplace. Allow private insurers to continue to insure people there. Do not impose employer mandates – WalMart likes that idea for a very good and self-serving reason. Private insurers are ridiculously expensive, but in the workplace with group policies, they do not discriminate against individuals or rescind coverage when someone gets sick.
Outside the workplace, give everyone a choice of private coverage or public. Private insurers have demonstrated themselves to be completely incapable of serving that market without what Baucus wants them to have – subsidy and mandates.
We ahve other massive problems brought abut by the private sector – Medicare fraud between $100 to $500 billion a year, providers with conflicts of interest, a diet that is leading us inexorably towards a diabetes and heart-related cataclysm.
Regarding your personal comments: I do not, I repeat, “hate” Baucus, nor do I imagine that he is even aware that I exist (though certain of his low-level staffers – those who police the blogs and letters in the paper are vaguely aware of me.) I’m not that stupid or vain. Baucus is an arrogant fellow, a Dick, a social clutz and curmudgeon who is bought and completely under the spell of DC power. He’s convenient, a way to help Democrats see the folly of placing their faith in Democrats. I brought up Nader to demonstrate how Democratic leadership is far more concerned about the rise of a third party than the sins of the other party. Nothing more, nothing personal.
Your insistence that I work “with” you guys through this “process” is tantamount to asking me to give it up, get in line, look down at my shoes, and submit. You are asking me to join the very process that, in the end, will undo us. The damage that will come about because of this process will not be undone in my lifetime. It has to be stopped. I am but one person in an obscure town in a pointless state. I do what I can.
And, I fell under the Obama spell when he ran for office. He is a charismatic politician. The day after he was elected, Rahm Emanuel day, was the day I awoke. Hillary Clinton day, Timothy Geithner day, Larry Summers day, Robert Gates day, Ken Salazar day … the way that Emanuel worked behind the scenes to prevent progressives form coming to the Senate in Illinois, Delaware and New York – I’m awake now.
July 4, 2009 at 8:44 am
You said you hated Max. I didn’t put words in your mouth.
Here’s the thing I’m not getting, Mark – when I’m talking about infrastructure, I’m talking about our government – the legislative and executive branch, in this instance – and really the legislative branch, because that is where reform is going to be shaped and created and has to go through.
I know what you want – you’ve articulated that, and certainly, it all makes sense to me…but how do you get that? I mean, individuals aren’t able to bitch and moan about corporate influence or behavior and change that. Corporations operate with one goal – profit – and under the laws set up for them. Laws that are set by the legislative branch.
So how do you affect those changes. I guess that is what I’m asking…because we are trying to affect change in health care, and as I see it, we kinda have to go through the executive branch.
Unless, of course, you are advocating a coup or a revolution. I’m pretty sure there’s no recall available to us on Rehberg or Tester or Baucus, and I’m not willing to wait until they’re unelected to get reform. That conversation is going on right now and I’m going to kick and scream and yell and do whatever I can to be heard.
So tell me – how do you propose to get what it is you want?
July 4, 2009 at 9:22 am
Baucus is but a symbol – an image to demonstrate the shortcoming sof Democrats.
Very short of time here … maybe more later. LBJ did the things he do because he had no choice. There were active movements in the population, he feared the public. He could not stop the war, as he was not in charge of that branch of government so he gave us Civil Rights legislation, Medicare. Nixon did much of the same. People were organizing, and people have far more power than they know about. Since that time the public has been pacified by lack of education and pervasive advertising, and doesn’t know how to organize anymore.
You don’t organize “through” them. You organize “against” them. You force their hand. To do that you need leaders, and these leaders exist in neither the executive or legislative branches. They are you.
July 5, 2009 at 3:46 pm
BTW – I said that I hated Max in sarcasm – I wondered where you got that from. Go re-read what I wrote. They say never be sarcastic in writing, as people don’t pick up on it. You didn’t.