« The Republican Vision for America - Divide and Conquer | Wattree's Blog | An Open Response to Halliburton »

Healthcare: Why Can't We Get the Congressional Option?


BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Healthcare: Why Can't We Get the Congressional Option?

There's at least one thing that Republicans do much better than Democrats, and that's marketing their initiatives. It doesn't matter how regressive the idea, Republicans manage to frame it in a way that if you oppose it you look like you're either degenerate, or at the very least, un-American. For example, instead of accurately calling themselves "The Order of Religious Bigots Dedicated to Shoving Our Version of God Down America's Throat," they market their insanity as "The Moral Majority," and instead of being honest and calling themselves "The Public Vagina Brigade," they call themselves "The Right to Life" proponents (even though they're willing to let that very same life starve to death after it's born). Conservatives get a lot of milage out of their creativity in this area, and progressives would do well to follow suit.

The initiative to legalize same-sex marriage would have been much more marketable, for example, if it had been dubbed "The Right to Love." And the same is true of healthcare reform. Proponents of a public option for healthcare could make life a lot more difficult for opponents in congress if instead of calling it "The Public Option" they simply dubbed it "The Congressional Option" - that way the issue would be self-explanatory. It would force every member of congress who placed the interest of the insurance industry over the welfare of his or her constituents to explain why they want to deny the American people the opportunity to opt into the exact same plan that congress and their families enjoy.

But I only bring this issue up as an introduction to a much more serious problem - demagoguery. All of the public manipulation above is symptomatic of a system that's out of control. It's a clear example of how politicians who are suppose to represent the people, are using marketing and public manipulation to feather their own nests.

The vast majority of politicians could care less about abortion, same-sex marriage, religion, or national healthcare reform. The only thing these people truly care about is being reelected - and that goes for Democrats as well as Republicans. The mere fact that these people, who we sent to congress to represent our interests, are willing to undermine our most fundamental right to long and healthy lives in order to ingratiate themselves with the insurance industry and feather their own nests, clearly demonstrates that our system is broken, and it requires our immediate attention.

With our economy in the worst shape that it's ever been since the Great Depression, let there be no doubt about the fact that we're involved in a class war. But the only way that America is going to come out whole is if we come to grips with an objective truth - we're either going to win together, or we're all going to lose together. That makes it all the more important that we have statesmen and women in office, rather than self-serving demagogues who can't see beyond the next election, but the latter is exactly what we've created.

We now have an entirely new class of people among us - the political class. With the exception of a handful of legislators, these people don't care about the rich, the poor, or the middle class - all they care about is who's in the best position to get them reelected in the next election cycle. They are totally self-serving, and America is suffering for it. The abject selfishness of these people have either created or contributed to every single problem that we have in America today.

But Americans are beginning to recognize that fact, that's why congress is either at, or close to, its lowest point ever in the polls. It's becoming increasingly clear that these politicians have become so arrogant and self-serving that they've lost touch with the people that they're suppose to represent. They've completely forgotten that they're public servants, our employees, not America's aristocracy. The political class has, literally, come to think of themselves as royalty.

Hyperbole? Let's look at the facts: During the Great Depression the House of Representatives voted to cut their own salary from $9,000 to $8,500 per year. In contrast, today a regular member of the house makes $174,000 a year. They've given themselves $16,000 in raises over the past five years. In addition to that, while their constituents are losing their jobs, their homes, and struggling to make ends meet, earlier this year congress gave itself an additional $93,000 (in addition to their salary) in "petty cash." Then, at the very same time that they were lavishing themselves in this unconscionable orgy of largess, they were coming up with countless excuses why our children shouldn't receive the same medical coverage as their own.

First they tried to cloud the issue by claiming that providing the American people with a congressional option for healthcare was a form of socialism, but then, so is social security. They then claimed that a congressional option would lead to government bureaucrats stepping between patients and their doctors, yet, they don't seem to have any problem in that regard, nor do their families.

The truth is, most of the members of congress could care less about any of that. All they really care about is their bottom line - being reelected. Thus, in this case, the best interests of their constituents have to take a backseat while they follow the money - money which is in the hands of large insurance companies that are determined to avoid having to either amend their business practices or lower their rates in order to compete with a government option.

These politicians try to cover themselves by touting the virtues of the free market, but they know full well that while there are certain things that the business community can do much better than government, like marketing, manufacturing, and selling, there are other things that business is lousy at, like providing public service. Most of us have an innate understanding of that fact, that's why very few citizens would opt for a private military, police, or fire department.

And there's a very logical reason for that. Business, by it's very nature, is designed to generate profit, not to provide services - there was ample evidence of that during the Bush administration. Prior to the military turning over many of its support services to Halliburton, for example, we never heard about our troops being given contaminated water or being electrocuted in the shower. The reason for that is our military's top priority was maintaining the troops, while Halliburton's top priority is maximizing its profits. The very same dynamic is at work when it comes to insuring our citizens - and the politicians know it, but they don't care, because again, for them, it's about me first, and only then, the public good. I mean, am I the only one sick of these people dictating what is on and off the table? I don't think so.

So what should we do about these demagogues?

The only way the people can regain control of the system is by completely cleaning house. We need to use our primary system to vote most our sitting politicians out of office - both Democratic and Republican. That will send an unequivocal message to everyone holding public office who's running things.

Thereafter, we need do away with all congressional perks, and instruct the newly elected politicians to vote themselves a salary and compensation package that reflects the median income of a middle class American, and salaries should be capped at an agreed upon percentage above the minimum wage. Only then will we be able to establish and maintain a representative body that is truly reflective of the people.

In short, we need representatives who actually feel our pain - those who can only imagine it, just won't do.

Eric L. Wattree

wattree.blogspot.com

If you really want to be hip, hop into a book.


44 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Wattree - finally we agree on something. If Charlie Rangel and Chris Dodd had to accept the same healthcare insurance as the rest of America, then maybe they would care what type of legislation gets passed!

But right now the Congresspeople get such a sweetheart deal for healthcare that they couldn't care what we get stuck with...

user-pic

there ought to be congress/constituent parity health care.

user-pic

For your first graf alone, I wish I could rec this eleven times.

And a few more for the rest of it.

user-pic

The health industry bought this congress for $170,000,000.

user-pic

Really Great Post Wattree. I'm with TOG.

user-pic

Excellent way of making it plain. The Congressional Option for health care can also be called "The Iraq Option". Article 31 of the Iraq constitution guarantees every citizen health care and the state must build hospitals and clinics. Hmmmm? Who is paying for those?

We want what Iraq has. Do we have to rebel and then be conquered to get it?

user-pic

Wow!

That's a great point, D.

user-pic

As you clearly say: the people do have the final word. Vote them out(primaries and election opportunities).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_stagnation_in_the_United_States

In the 2000 Congressional Elections, out of the 435 Congressional districts in which there were elections, 359 were listed as "safe" by Congressional Quarterly. [4] In all of these 359, there was no uncertainty as to who would win. The results a week later confirmed that very few House races were competitive. The 2000 House election resulted in a net change of only four seats (+1 for the Democrats, -2 for the Republicans and the electing of an additional independent). In total, 98% of all incumbents were re-elected. [5]

The Internet has become the great equalizer in campaign funding. It's possible to take away one of the huge advantages that incumbents have.

user-pic

. . . and we wonder why we're ignored.

user-pic

Only some of us wonder. ;-)

user-pic

Thanks for the sword, Thinker. I think I'm gonna go on a mission.

user-pic

JEM has pointed this out in the past. The more we can think about the big picture, the more we can realize that we can be heard.

Bill Maher made a somewhat similar point the other day: Check out 2:00:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrCR8TndvYk

user-pic

Thanks for the sword, Thinker. I think I'm gonna go on a mission.

user-pic

Thanks for the sword, Thinker. I think I'm gonna go on a mission.

user-pic

> t would force every member of congress who placed the interest of the insurance industry over the welfare of his or her constituents to explain why they want to deny the American people the opportunity to opt into the exact same plan that congress and their families enjoy.

We shouldn't pay for congress' healthcare either.

> he only thing these people truly care about is being reelected - and that goes for Democrats as well as Republicans.

This is true. Your public option for healthcare would just give them more control over our lives, and hence more bargaining power to get reelected.

> let there be no doubt about the fact that we're involved in a class war.

You would like this, if it were true. The wealthy provide the less wealthy jobs. Redistributing the wealth, as it did in the New Deal, will only lengthen the amount of time that we spend in recession.

> The abject selfishness of these people have either created or contributed to every single problem that we have in America today.

All people are selfish. We all seek to benefit the most ourselves from every action that we take.

> First they tried to cloud the issue by claiming that providing the American people with a congressional option for healthcare was a form of socialism, but then, so is social security.

True on both counts.

> They then claimed that a congressional option would lead to government bureaucrats stepping between patients and their doctors, yet, they don't seem to have any problem in that regard, nor do their families.

Because they are the beneficiaries of their options, and write the law. See how this works yet?

> These politicians try to cover themselves by touting the virtues of the free market, but they know full well that while there are certain things that the business community can do much better than government, like marketing, manufacturing, and selling, there are other things that business is lousy at, like providing public service.

This is false. Most public services are provided by private companies after the government taxes you, pays someone to handle the money, and then finally pays the private contractor to do the deed.

> Most of us have an innate understanding of that fact, that's why very few citizens would opt for a private military, police, or fire department.

These few areas are why we should pay taxes. Every member of society that pays taxes has a benefit from paying these taxes for these services. Only the receivers benefit from providing government funded healthcare. This equates to enslaving everyone wealthier than the recipients of said healthcare.

> nd there's a very logical reason for that. Business, by it's very nature, is designed to generate profit, not to provide services

It's designed to provide the best service at the lowest cost. Get it right.

> Prior to the military turning over many of its support services to Halliburton, for example, we never heard about our troops being given contaminated water or being electrocuted in the shower.

A *perfect* example of why giving the government our money for healthcare is a bad idea.

> Thereafter, we need do away with all congressional perks, and instruct the newly elected politicians to vote themselves a salary and compensation package that reflects the median income of a middle class American,

Amazing that this idea can come from a liberal.

> and salaries should be capped at an agreed upon percentage above the minimum wage.

And then you screw it up. This would simply cause politicians to vote an increase in the minimum wage; A completely arbitrary number, that only serves to force everyone earning above the minimum wage to earn less effectively. The minimum wage may be worse than government controlled healthcare.

user-pic

CNM,

In response to my comment that "Prior to the military turning over many of its support services to Halliburton, for example, we never heard about our troops being given contaminated water or being electrocuted in the shower."

You said,

"A *perfect* example of why giving the government our money for healthcare is a bad idea."

So I take it that you approve of Halliburton providing our troops with contaminated water for profit, and doing such shoddy work that our troops are killed just trying to take a shower.

And BTW, I'm not a liberal - I'm a progressive. There's a big difference. Ideologues of every stripe tend to give ideology priority over thought, just as you seem to be doing.


user-pic

> So I take it that you approve of Halliburton providing our troops with contaminated water for profit, and doing such shoddy work that our troops are killed just trying to take a shower.

I do approve of you attempting to make an argument based off of facts.

I do not approve of a restriction of the free market. With the government turning over said services to Halliburton, the government eliminated competition. Halliburton et al. had free reign to do whatever they wanted with no consequences because they had no competition. Competition creates better products for lower prices.

Turning over our healthcare to Big Brother will accomplish the same thing; substandard services for increased cost, in addition to enslaving the wealthy to the poor.

user-pic
This would simply cause politicians to vote an increase in the minimum wage; A completely arbitrary number, that only serves to force everyone earning above the minimum wage to earn less effectively.

No, it would make for a more equitable society.

Good grief!

You are OK with making money off the backs of the poor? That's kind of ick.

CMN is teh suck.

user-pic

People earning in the lower 50% essentially pay no taxes (3% of all revenues collected). This is fair as they essentially own no part of the country.

It's the middle class that is far more screwed. They, too, own little if any part of the country but pay far more in taxes.

The focus on Washington should be the middle class, first and foremost. They are the stabilizing force in society.

user-pic

Oops! Wanted to include this:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Eric Wattree's ideas are sound and get away from the "bleeding heart" stereotype. It would do much to revitalize the coalition that was the core of the FDR Democratic party.

As Bill Maher pointed out this week, all we need is one good party to capture this central portion of the socioeconomic portion of the country. That is where real improvement can be sought.

The median household income (the magic 50% number of my previous post) is about $45K.

user-pic

PS: Bwak, you asked me to point out where you made a personal comment to someone:

We see right away that you said:

CMN is teh suck.

While I'm not sure what the grammatical meaning of this sentence is, I'm pretty sure it was an ad hominem personal attack on CMN rather than on the ideas expressed.

user-pic

I meant that he sucks at the teat of the public. Poor people pay plenty of taxes, CT.

Certainly an expert like you is aware of that.

user-pic
The only way the people can regain control of the system is by completely cleaning house. We need to use our primary system to vote most our sitting politicians out of office - both Democratic and Republican.

I have been saying this for years.

I like to call it, 'the big flush.'

user-pic

What percentage of income do the poor pay in payroll taxes and sales taxes?

As a percentage of income.

That would be the figure that has some actual relevance.

user-pic

Bwakfat,

The big flush - as in, Flush Limbaugh.

I like that. I wish I'd said it, and I'm certain I will.

user-pic

Please do!

user-pic

No poor people do not pay "plenty" of taxes. Unless what you mean by "plenty" is more than zero.

In the link I put in my comment, it shows that their average tax rate is 3%. Note this is the AVERAGE of EVERYONE under 50%.

That's why I put the link there.

user-pic

That is income taxes, the only progressive tax. The bulk of what the Federal Gubmint collects is sales taxes. Then, of course, there is FISA and medicare.

Try again.

user-pic

I don't have to. You are wrong again, bird:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm

Individual income taxes and payroll taxes now account for four out of every five federal revenue dollars. Corporate income taxes contribute another 12 percent.

That would be about 93% of all revenue.

Tell me again about the Federal sales tax????

As far as Medicare, you're right. We should eliminate that program. It's unfair to the poor.


user-pic

Payroll? Um, OK that's not income taxes. And Sales taxes aren't in there because they tend to be state taxes.

Either way, the poor pay plenty in taxes as a percentage of income. More than you do.

user-pic

Actually you don't know how much I pay in taxes. And sales taxes are based on consumption.

Again, you thought there was a Federal component to sales taxes... and so made wild pronouncements. Per usual.

Payroll taxes are the other taxes you referred to: SS and Medicare. Of course, I referred to these also. The poor get to take advantage of these programs as I already pointed out.

State taxes are not the topic of discussion here because they aren't set by Congress nor is any federal program going to be able to access them. Please stick to the topic.

You'd appear a bit smarter if your SOP on TPM wasn't just merely to contradict me. That way, you won't have to backpedal time and again. Once again, you tried to call me out, but found out I knew more than you. Chill out, Bwak. You will live longer. I'm happy to have a political discussion with you when you learn the foundations of intelligent discourse.

user-pic

Clearthinker, we've been in chat for hours and I'm kinda disappointed you never showed up. Care to stop by? And....do you like the Decemberists at all? Just curious.

Hope to see you before the end of the weekend.

user-pic

What's the chat room link again? Perhaps you can put the URL in your TPM bio page.

user-pic

Thank you, Bwak, me luv.

user-pic

You're welcome

=D

user-pic

I like how you don't post this in reply to me in a vain attempt to get me not to respond to your point.

Increasing the minimum wage creates no real wealth for the people earning the minimum wage simply because of supply and demand. If everyone has more money, the price of widgets simply increases.

Please, go take Econ 101 before you attempt to contribute your invalid ideas.

user-pic
user-pic

CMN,

You said,

"Increasing the minimum wage creates no real wealth for the people earning the minimum wage simply because of supply and demand. If everyone has more money, the price of widgets simply increases."

That's both nonsense, and a myth. The price of widgets are going to go up anyway. Any savings derived from starving the people at the bottom goes right into the pockets of the fat cats.

And BTW, Econ 101 is based purely on theory - and based on our current condition, bad theory at that.

user-pic

If the person is only worth paying $6/hr, why pay him more?

Poor people are formed by poor choices. The reason rich people get richer are because they keep doing the things that made them rich. If the poor get poorer it's because they -keep doing- the things that make them poor.

And no, it's not a myth. With increased minimum wages always comes increased inflation, at least on the local scale. Look at the cost of living in say, California, vs Oklahoma.

user-pic

Eric, I wish that every person in America would read this blog. Thanks for writing it!

user-pic

Orlando: you expressed similar sentiments in an earlier blog, basically saying you will vote out your present representatives. Was that a serious thought or merely some blogmanship? It's certainly an interesting idea.

user-pic

Thank you, Orlando.

From your lips to God's ear - and I don't mean just for vanity, but so we could all discuss it. I think it would solve 99.9% of our problems.

Leave a comment

Wattree

user-pic

Following: 9
Followers: 41

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

Bio

Eric L. Wattree is a writer, poet, and musician, born in Los Angeles. He’s a columnist for The Los Angeles Sentinel and The Black Star News. He’s also the author of A Message From the Hood, and a contributing writer to Your Black World, and The Huffington Post.

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address