Why Questions and Challenges are important BEFORE something is a "done deal" NOT After

[Armstead]

All of the divisiveness over HCR seems to have gotten to the "forest and trees" stage. From the current tone of things, this damn “bill” could just as easily be a law over how much blue should be in blue cheese. The content doesn't really matter. We have a “bill” that has been deemed as the “solution.” Therefore, we are told, questions and criticism are inappropriate.

In the case of HCR, the Forest is the need to reform health care to shift to a system in which coverage is affordable and available to everyone, and in which everyone contributes according to what is reasonable for their particular income and life situation.

The trees are the political inanity that surrounds this bill. The phony labels being put on people and the mischaracterization of both support, constructive criticism of it and outright opposition to the bill in its present form.

I believe it is necessary to question and criticize things like this, and to do what we can to prod our elected representatives NOW -- INSTEAD of just taking the spin from the media and politicians at face value, or just being a "Rah Rah" chorus for anything with a D attached to it.

The current debate is similar to times past when criticism was likened to “far left whining” or “perfect being the enemy of the good.” Those same arguments were used to stifle questions and challenges to past policies that most people now acknowledge were SCREW UPS in hindsight.

In the 1990's there were several issues that were very divisive such as Deregulation of Telecommunications and Deregulation of the Financial Sector among them. (Both were called "reform" by the way.) There were others including the "free trade" movement (another misniomer because it was actually making the ability of nations to handle their trade policies less free) and its relatives NAFTA and Most Favored Nation status with China.

In all of these there was a common pattern. The Democratic Elites rallied behind a policy that was in direct contradiction to liberal or progressive positions. They were based on conservative "free market" ideology, and were aligned with the interests of Big Capital and Big Corporations against the wider interests of the public.

There were similar conflicts between the so-called "left" and so-called "centrists." The Elite Message Machine did what they do so well. They sold a lot of empty promises that sound great in theory, but did not pass the Simple Common Sense Test. And they did their best to discredit progressive and liberal criticisms as some kind of weird complaints from "naive purists"

Classic example was Telecommunications Reform. It was a huge package that basically eliminated restrictions on the ownership of media, and removed their accountability. That was trumpeted as ushering in great revolution and would make media more competitive and offer everyone more choices. The bill did contain some things that were beneficial and helped with the subsequent development of New Media. But they were peripheral to some really bad stuff at the core of it, which made things WORSE, like removing restrictions on the number of radio and television stations any one company could own.

Those malcontents on "the left" complained and fought hard to get the bad stuff taken out. They also asked some common sense questions like: How is allowing one company to own a lot more broadcast stations going to increase competition. Won't iot do the opoposite by enabling monopolies?"

But the Democratic Elite said "Trust Us. It's not perfect but it's the best we can do. We know better than you." And they rammed it through. -- And we all know how well that has turned out in terms of diversity of ownership and control of the media.....(And, just to be clear, the developments that have led to the Internet media, were not the result this.)

Same things with "free trade." Those pesky progressives opposed things like NAFTA and Most Favored Nation status with China. The criticisms and questions were pretty straightforward. "How is encouraging American companies to move to plants over the border in Mexico where they can pay people almost nothing and with very little environmental regulation going to help American workers?”

The replies were a lot of platitudes that sounded good but defied common sense, about how this was creating a new market for American products and companies in Mexico.....But it overlooks the fact that the REASON to move a plant to Mexico was to pay as little as you can get away with, therefore the workers there won't have enough money to form a “market.”....Or like China. “Why encourage more outsourcing and siphoning of American production to China? “ Because we were told “it encourages China to be a more cooperative trading partner.” We all know how well that one turned out.

There are many other examples in recent history.

The point is this (IMO): We should not – yet again -- blindly accept the platitudes that politicians and media whores and their enforcers are using to push this bill. Questions and criticism and, yes, complaining and pushback are necessary.

Don;t just accept fallacious logic like “We need this bill becausde it will cover 30 millions Americans” without asking some basic questions. WILL IT REALLY cover them? HOW will it cover them? Is this particular strategy the only and best way to get more people covered, or are there better alternatives?

More important, WHAT WILL BE THE LONG RANGE IMPACTS of the basic direction set by this bill? Is this a break with the system that created the mess? Or is it entrenching the present bad system?

Are we doing the equivalent of expecting the Health Insurance Monopoly to behave more reasonably, just as we expected China to behave more reasonably after MFN status was granted them?

Are we doing the equivalent of assuming that a combination of “market forces” will make bankers and investment houses act responsibly after we deregulated banking?

What really is the long term impact of this bill. Will it help the overall situation, or will it turn out to be another case of the Emperor's New Clothes?

THIS IS THE TIME TO BE ASKING ABOUT THIS, AND PUSHING FOR A CONSTRUCTIVE BILL -- NOT AFTER IT HAS BEEN SET IN STONE.

[Frances]

1. Now is the time to look reality in the face

We can get a bill that is not what we want but is a bill with some good in it.

Or we can insist of getting exactly what we want, lose, and head back into 1994 when the Repubs took over Congress after the Clintons' health care bill failed.

The only way for liberal Dems to get what they want is to elect enough liberal Dems to vote for what we want. The problem is that there aren't enough liberal districts. And the number of liberal districts will get SMALLER because after the next census, liberal states will LOSE representatives while conservative states like Utah will GAIN.

[Armstead]

3. That is a false Either/Or Choice

That is the kind of selling point that stuck us with NAFTA, media monopolies, etc.

"Do something wrong now so we can fix it later or we'll get nothing."

No, there are alternatives. You can do more modest good things now WITHOUT bad things that get engtrenched.

It's easier to do something right the first time.

[Frances]

6. As I posted elsewhere,

no Democratic President will even attempt to get what you want if this bill fails. The President will look at how an attempt at a health care bill weakened Bill Clinton and Obama and will say it just isn't worth it. (Not to mention that FDR, HST, and LBJ also failed.)

If this bill fails, we are likely to get a Republican President who will do everything possible to destroy what we already have. For example, we had a single payer system in Medicare. Fortunately we still have the original Medicare, but Republicans added another Medicare-like program that costs 14% more than original Medicare BECAUSE insurance companies were brought in to be middle men and these middle men are paid from tax payer money that should be going to medical care.

[Armstead]

8. They most likely won't attempt it if this passes either

That is why -- even if it is not as strong as many would like -- it's important to at least not screw up with bad policies and a preemption of real regulation in the pressure to simply get "a bill."

No one is saying abandon health reform now. Simply to make sure we get it right and not let a bunch of false deadlines, pressure from the elites and empty platitudes blind us to the content.

[Frances]

15. You make it sound as though what you want is politically

possible and Obama and the Dems are at fault.

Have you noticed that not a single Repub is doing one single thing to help? Have you noticed that the Repubs are doing everything they can to defeat ANY reform? And have you noticed that almost certainly there will be fewer Dems in Congress after the next election?

I say take what we can get now and do our best to stop more Repubs from being elected.

[Armstead]

25. I agree partially -- But we should not be doing more harm than good

Mandates that force people to buy priuvate insurance with very few (if any) actual regulation of rates is not simply a matter of "a start in the right diorection."

It is a huge step in the wrong direction because it is goinbg to further expand the stranglehold of private insurance. This whol bill is enshrining the idea of "free market healthcare" and it is a death blow to the idea that the government has any legitimate role in actually providing coverage.

As for the Republicans -- I can guarantee you, if the demlocrats poroposed a resolution in favor of Apple Pie, the GOP would oppose it, just to oppose it. This is simply a political tactic for them.

[Frances]

28. I think the market place will work in the case of

mandated insurance. If the rates are too high, and the REpubs are in power, they will simply abandon health care for all.

If the rates are too high, and the Dems are in power, then the Dems will force the insurance companies to lower their costs because they will need to do so in order to get re-elected.

That is just politics.

[Armstead]

32. Why don't the Dems put in place regulations on costs now?

They are already too high, and likely to go much higher unless the Democrats put in place real regulation now.

[niceypoo]

26. Its about leadership

...not the individual sheep

[tbyg52]

2. K&R nt

[ProSense]

4. You mean

yelling sellout doesn't work?

[Armstead]

5. Once again you focus on the trees

You are muddling up tactics and personalities with actual content and goals.

Part of the pattern I mentioned in the OP..Let's focus on the bad manners of some people as an excuse to avoid the real issues.

Some anarchists misbehaved at the WTO in Seattle in 1999. A whole lot of reasonable people went there to protect respectfully....But let's get people to concentrate on the bad behavior of tghe anarchists to distract attention from the responsible criticisms of responsible critics.

[ProSense]

7. Wrong, you're confusing

the screams with reasoned arguments.

I believe it is necessary to question and criticize things like this, and to do what we can to prod our elected representatives NOW -- INSTEAD of just taking the spin from the media and politicians at face value, or just being a "Rah Rah" chorus for anything with a D attached to it.

The bill passed five committees and both chambers of Congress without a single coordinated effort to pressure Senators and Represenatives with reasonable arguments.

[TheKentuckian]

9. It is hardly the same bill PS

The structure and the funding systems vary fairly significantly. Certainly, you can be a fierce advocate for the bill as it stands but I don't think its fair to pretend that the 5 committee marks or the bills out of each house are all the same thing.

It is terribly difficult to have a single coordinated effort when the thing has been in many different incarnations and always in flux. What is someone suppose to argue? The pressure for the public option for example has been intense and ongoing but that has failed utterly to affect the bill other than temporarily.

[Armstead]

11. IMO they shoud have had a more coherent plan from the start of the process

All of the changes during the sausage making process made it difficult to focus on what the bill really would be or even what directional it was going in.

That made intelligent debate of specifics almost impossible.

[Armstead]

10. I will half agree with you there

Yiou are correct. Proponents of real reform did screw up earlier, and let the "teabaggers" drive the debate this summer. They (we) screwed the pooch by not organizing widespread campaogns earlier.

But two points to remember -- Many of us TRUSTED the Congress and Obama and took them at their word when they said there will be a public option. Another DUer Tom Rinaldio (who is not a "rabble rouser") made that point in an excellent post earlier this week. The proponents of single payer gave up a lot, in return, we thought, for the inclusion of other important things.

Instead, Congress and Obama pulled the rug out from the "compromises" we had made and yanked the public option and medicare buy in, while keeping the worst part mandates for private insurance.

So, we were double crossed. We "kept our powder dry" because we believed them.

As a reesult, yes, somne peope now are not in much of a mood to "sit down and behave" because we did that and look what it got us.

And again, these are all forests and trees. The content of this bill is counterproductive in many ways. It is completely reasonable to challenge that.

[NashVegas]

14. How Much Are You Getting Paid?

[bahrbearian]

16. Deleted

[inna]

20. Huh??

:wtf:

[Armstead]

24. Less than you I'm sure

[NashVegas]

30. Sorry

That was meant for the propagandist. My bad, Armstead.

[Armstead]

33. Okay

[Hello_Kitty]

18. My god. You were posting all day yesterday and here you are again this morning

It's starting to feel like spam, ProSense.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. I remember the same things, the empty promises to "fix things later"

if these bills had negative consequences. I remember promises that people who lost their jobs through NAFTA and "free" trade agreements would be retrained at government expense that these treaties would actually increase the numbers of jobs as all those Third World countries started buying American exports.

Yes, folks, they actually said nonsensical things like that. I never believed them, but a lot of yuppie types who have never been inside a factory in their lives (I spent three years working as a temp, both industrial and clerical, during the Reagan recession) nodded and said, "Yes, you'll all be retrained and Mexico will start buying stuff from us."

What was that saying about "Fool me once...?"

Why should the corporations agree to "fix things later" when they got everything THEY wanted?

[Armstead]

13. yep -- Once something is in place, there is seldom the stomach to actually fix it

Look at all of gthe calls from Democrats to restore the restrictions of Glass Stegal Act, to reduce the big investments banks down to a reasonable size again.

NOT HAPPENIN'

[eleny]

17. K&R

[Diamonique]

19. I beg to differ.

You said: "We have a “bill” that has been deemed as the “solution.” Therefore, we are told, questions and criticism are inappropriate."

I haven't seen anyone here say that questions and criticism are inappropriate. What I have seen is people saying that all of the "Obama is a traitor/sellout/liar, etc. whom I will never vote for again" is inappropriate. And I agree with that sentiment.

We must keep pushing for more reform after this bill is passed. Its passing is a miracle in itself, but it's a LONG way from where we need to be.

Personally, I intend to add a "we need single payer" statement on every e-mail or letter I send to my representative and Senators in the future... no matter what the topic of the message. I'll give my thoughts or suggestions about the topic at hand, and then I'll add my single payer message at the bottom. Always... for years... until we finally get what we really need.

It will take small increments, over many years, but I believe this bill is the beginning.

JMO.

[Armstead]

23. My differ with your differ

In the "trees" category is how people express their opinions. Some people (myself included) get carried away on all sides of the issue, and say things in overheated ways that are not helpful.

One reason I wrote my long winded OP is to at least try to calmly explain why many of us feel the way we do.

Look at NAFTA. It was sold as promising a bunch of good things, and those who raised questions about it at the time were scolded like disobedient children by the Clinton Elite. "We'll improve it over time" they said/

Now, it is widely acknowledge that it has been a failure. However, it has become so entrenched and embedded that it would be impossible to repeal it, and it is unlikely that it will even even be modified to fix its problems. We're stuck with it. The Damage has been done.

Many of us believe that the Democratic Party and Obama are about to do a variation of NAFTA with healthcare. This is not a matter of "the perfect being the enemy of the good." It is a matter of bad being the enemy of the good. We believe it is a critical mistake to further embed the ripoff private insurance corporations into the system byu forcing peopeo to buy privatyer healthcare without even a public option as an alternative.

This bill enshrines Private Ripoff healthcare as the permanent basis of healthcare. It preempts any changes down the line -- Just as NAFTA has made it impossible to go back and draw up more beneficial trade policies. Just as 1990's banking deregulation has made it impossible to dislodge the stranglehold of the "too big to fail" institutions that deregulation allowed.

That is why some iof us get overheated. We're trying to slowdown a runaway train that we believe will do more harm than good.

And we get emotional about it when we're insulted and denigrated as "far left malcontents" and all of the otehr nonsense that seems so familiar from times when this tactic was used to silence real questions in the past.

[inna]

21. KR

Excellent post!

:applause:

[Little Star]

22. k&r

[HughMoran]

27. I hope people are pushing for improvements in this bill

Rant aside, your underlying point is a good one - call your Congresspeople and push for changes that are beneficial to the people.

[jgraz]

29. Amazing that some people need to be reminded of this.

Amazing... and discouraging.

[JVS]

31. Oh, they don't need to be reminded

They just want people to shut up.

[GOTV]

34. It's so obvious that it speaks poorly of the community that it has to be said n/t

[Armstead]

35. I know -- You think we might have learned a few lessons by now