creators.com opinion web
Conservative Opinion General Opinion
Joe Conason
Joe Conason
17 Oct 2014
Let Obama and Frieden Do Their Jobs

If the prospect of hanging concentrates the mind, then even the possibility of infection with Ebola should do … Read More.

9 Oct 2014
What Ebola Can Teach Us

Even if Africa's Ebola emergency never mutates into a global catastrophe, those of us who live in the world's … Read More.

2 Oct 2014
Those Budget-Busting, Job-Killing GOP Governors

Even as Republicans boast of their chances to take over the United States Senate come November, their party's … Read More.

The Sickening Addiction That May Kill Reform

Comment

If Congress fails to enact health care reform this year — or if it enacts a sham reform designed to bail out corporate medicine while excluding the "public option" — then the public will rightly blame Democrats, who have no excuse for failure except their own cowardice and corruption. The punishment inflicted by angry voters is likely to be reduced majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives — or even the restoration of Republican rule on Capitol Hill.

Many of those now talking down President Obama's health care initiative were in Washington back in 1994, when Bill Clinton's proposals to achieve universal coverage were killed by members of the president's own party. The Democrats lost control of Congress that November in a historic repudiation, largely because of public disillusionment with their policy failures.

Nearly every poll now shows the American people demanding change in the health care system, with majorities favoring universal coverage and, in many surveys, a government plan that competes with private insurance. But powerful Democratic politicians, especially in the Senate, are pretending not to hear. They adopt all sorts of positions, from bluntly opposing any substantive change this year to promoting bogus alternatives. They claim to be trying to help Mr. Obama gather the votes he will need, or to assist him in attracting Republican votes. They insist that the country can't afford universal care, or that the public option won't pass (before debate has even begun).

Indeed, many of the most intransigent Democrats don't bother to make actual arguments to support their position. Nor do they seem to worry that Democratic voters and the party's main constituencies overwhelmingly support the public option and universal coverage.

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., has simply stated, through her flack, that she refuses to support a public option. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who has tried to fashion a plan that will entice Republicans, warns that the public option is a step toward single-payer health care — not much of an objection to a model that serves people in every other industrialized country with lower costs and superior outcomes.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., feebly protests that her state's mismanagement by a Republican governor must stall the progress of the rest of the country. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., says he has a better plan involving regional cooperatives, which would be unable to effectively compete with the insurance behemoths or bargain with pharmaceutical giants.

The excuses sound different, but all of these lawmakers have something in common — namely, their abject dependence on campaign contributions from the insurance and pharmaceutical corporations fighting against real reform. Consider Landrieu, a senator from a very poor state whose working-class constituents badly need universal coverage (and many of whom now depend on Medicare, a popular government program). According to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan watchdog outfit, she has received nearly $1.7 million from corporate medical interests, including hospitals, insurance companies, nursing homes and drug firms, during the course of her political career.

The same kind of depressing figures can be found in the campaign filings of many of the Democrats now posing as obstacles to reform, notably including Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who has distinguished himself in the most appalling way. The Montana Standard, a news outlet in his home state, found that Baucus has received more campaign money from health and insurance industry donors than any other single member of Congress. "In the past six years," the Standard found, "nearly one-fourth of every dime raised by the Montana senator and his political-action committee has come from groups and individuals associated with drug companies, insurers, hospitals, medical-supply firms, health-service companies and other health professionals."

Whenever Democratic politicians are confronted with this conflict between the public interest and their private fund-raising, they take offense at the implied insult. They protest, as a spokesman for Sen. Landrieu did, that they make policy decisions based on what is best for the people of their states, "not campaign contributions." But when health reform fails — or turns into a trough for their contributors, who will believe them? And who will vote for them?

Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer (www.observer.com). To find out more about Joe Conason, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.



Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
It will be very interesting to see senators and reps putting the public best interest as first priority even if it goes against those that donated and potentially will donate for their next campaign.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Jimmy
Thu Jun 25, 2009 11:37 AM
But powerful Democratic politicians, especially in the Senate, are pretending not to hear

Interesting concept Joe however I would like to see the polls which report most people want Universal Health Care. The polls I have seen recently have only shown that 11% of those polled were unhappy with their current health care situation. That doesn't mean that they want universal health care it means they think it needs to be changed. If roughly 90% of people like something and 10% didn't why overhaul the entire system. Also, you could make minor changes to Medicare and Medicaid which allowed it to cover more people easily no need to create a whole new system. Also, all the democrat dissenters are probably looking at the VA health care system. It is probably one of the hardest places to get anything done. Everything cost more than it should (not for the patients but the tax payers that ultimately fund this hospital). It is currently taking care of veterans for free and even some of them choose to go to a private doctor for better care.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Chrisoflucas
Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:22 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Joe Conason
Oct. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
28 29 30 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Froma Harrop
Froma HarropUpdated 21 Oct 2014
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 20 Oct 2014
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 18 Oct 2014

20 Feb 2014 Minimum Truth: The Hollow Argument Against Higher Wages

10 Jan 2013 'Most Antagonistic' Toward Israel? That Would Be Ronald Reagan's Defense Secretary

21 Jun 2012 Republicans Swoon Over Holder's ‘Partisan' Leak Probers (and Forget Ken Starr)