the underlying political problem: public options don't have the money for PR & bribes

[yurbud]

Not just in health care, but the military and education are avoiding cost effective ''public options'' in favor of more costly and scam-riddled ''public-private partnerships'' what would more rightly be called corruption or fascism. It is clear that Medicare works. The military works without mercenaries (we just don't like what they are used for), and public education would work if teachers weren't expected to do more and more with less and less money and fewer and fewer students who are ready to learn.

In the case of Medicare and Social Security, the fact that they work is so self-evident that the public automatically resists things like the effort to privatize social security, and privatization and undermining of Medicare can only be done in nibbles around the edges.

For the military, which fewer people are familiar with, the superiority of using regular troops instead of mercenaries should be obvious: greater accountability and lower cost. But we pay far more to have trigger happy mercenaries do it instead.

And in the case of public education, whatever it's problems, fixing them within the public system would be cheaper than outsourcing it to for-profit scammers, who by definition will charge a profit on top of whatever the cost of doing the job is.

Why would politicians of both parties consistently choose the more costly and often less effective option?

Two reasons, both have to do with money.

One, since a public program doesn't make a profit, it doesn't have the money to buy a megaphone to advocate for itself, and political advocacy by public agencies is frowned on anyway. So if the public doesn't directly use the program, they don't know whether it works or not, and if Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck says it's bloated and wasteful, they don't hear much to disprove that.

Two, privatizing anything makes a perfect corruption machine. Some investors pour money into political campaigns to get politicians to privatize and give them the contracts for food service to the troops, collecting money from parking meters, or torturing people. Once the contract is set up, tax money that is given to the contractor is used for more campaign contributions, and the politicians that serve the contractor best can expect jobs as lobbyists, CEOs, or do nothing board members when they leave office. Their family members can start collecting those jobs even sooner (ask Hadassa Lieberman).

So when someone in Congress votes to privatize a government function, it is a gift that keeps on giving back to them financially.

Doing the opposite, taking something AWAY from the private sector, or even part of it away as would be the case with a public option or the even simpler and more obvious Medicare buy in, would be cutting off that potential revenue stream. The gratitude of voters is intangible and possibly fleeting. The gratitude of the private sector buys coke, hookers, and a fifth house.

[the other one]

1. Excellent analysis. K and R

[cap]

2. we do have the money -- look at what we gave during the Obama campaign

we just aren't organized to pursue our agenda after the election.... We mistakenly thought all we had to do was to "get the right people in office".

We just need to devote our grassroots prowess to getting OUR agenda through.

There is a Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid!

[yurbud]

3. we can't afford to offer the same retirement package corporate America can