Why Isn't Obama Doing Anything About Congress? Can He?

After ending on a cynical note in my last post----mentioning my uncomfortable suspicion that the Obama administration, Dems and Republicans, right along with the insurance companies, would like nothing more than to mandate that everybody buy insurance (expanding the market by 50 million), while doing next to nothing to bring down premiums, which would require de-consolidating the industry with a "public option" competitor----I felt slightly guilty.

Well...that was until I read the L.A. Times, which reports that expert analysts are saying that while it's true that there are many bills in circulation right now, many leading proposals have insurers "poised to reap a financial windfall."

The half-dozen leading overhaul proposals circulating in Congress would require all citizens to have health insurance, which would guarantee insurers tens of millions of new customers -- many of whom would get government subsidies to help pay the companies' premiums.

So, the public must continue paying for not only the skyrocketing premiums, which analysts say will double by 2010, but also increased subsidies (tax money that could no doubt be better spent) that go straight back to these providers so they can, in turn, support their ludicrously high prices. Does a guaranteed expansion of the health care market by tens of millions of customers and essentially government-supported consolidation through subsidies without a mechanism for ensuring competition sound like a good deal? Is that really reform? We might also ask ourselves: How much have these premiums been rising the past six years? Answer: "by more than 87 percent, on average, while profits at ten of the largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent." No competition. The government will just help pay the exorbitant health care premiums, though the percentage of cost covered is going to drop (should the industry get its way). Sounds like a perverted form of corporate protectionism. Hardly the government intervening to fix an oppressive market failure.

In fact, we could have the opposite: The Senate Finance Committee has been playing around with the idea of requiring insurers to reimburse customers for at least 76% of their medical costs, though that number has now dropped to around 65%. The current percentage that insurers cover is 80-90%, and yet the industry is still arguing for the "government [to] set the floor lower so insurers could provide flexible, more affordable plans." As a consumer, why would I want a health care "reform"bill that actually lowers the percentage of costs they're obligated to pay? Doesn't really sound like an improvement, seeing as how under the current system 50% of bankruptcies are medical related, and 75% of those filing for bankruptcy had private insurance when they filed. This haggling---whatever the result---won't help solve the problem at all, unless of course health insurance covered practically all the costs.

The question remains then: Why hasn't Obama used the bully pulpit to urge Congress in the right direction? Some have argued, like Matt Yglesias, that the president can't control Congress, which is of course very true. Although, as Glenn Greenwald points out: (1) "the President commands a vast infrastructure on which incumbent members of Congress rely for re-election." He cites Rahm Emanuel's ability to whip up votes in the past. And (2) The "Obama White House has proven itself extremely adept at compelling compliance with the President's agenda" when it came to pushing non-compliant progressives into supporting the war supplemental bill.

The White House is playing hardball with Democrats who intend to vote against the supplemental war spending bill, threatening freshmen who oppose it that they won't get help with reelection and will be cut off from the White House, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said Friday.

Though Greenwald acknowledges that Obama can't "single-handedly control what Congress does," he notes the disparity of leverage he exerts, on the one hand "protecting" Blue Dog "centrists," while on the other, holding progressives to a different standard. And Republicans still call this guy a "leftist" and a "liberal." One thing I find extremely disconcerting about all of this, if Greenwald's correct, is that

Blue Dogs -- virtually all of whom represent more conservative districts -- are more vulnerable and thus more dependent for re-election on the White House and Democratic Party infrastructure than progressives are.

As far as the whole "bipartisan" excuse for watering down the health care bill, Greenwald is right to point out the obvious: that the GOP was not and is not interested in passing any bill, whatever its form. That has been understood from the outset: "Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) announced that Republicans will reject reform no matter what's in the bill." It makes sense that they'd try and obstruct Obama's agenda regardless of the details. Why would they be interested in passing reform?

Why would the GOP want to help Obama achieve one of his most important and politically profitable goals? Of course they were going to try to sabotage the entire project and would oppose health care reform no matter what form it took.

And now that closed-door meetings with the pharmaceutical industry have been reported, "a deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion"despite Obama's pledge to have all wheeling and dealing broadcasted on CNN (like that would ever happen)---how could the purported necessity for a "bipartisan" bill---with all the attendant, illogical excuses for the lack of a more economically practical, progressive bill----not appear like a pretext for a watered-down, industry-friendly piece of legislation?

With the quiet agreement between the White House and industry restricting savings to no more than $80 billion, compare the Urban Institute's study on public policy, which estimates "that a public plan could save taxpayers from $224 billion to $400 billion over 10 years by lowering the cost of proposed subsidies for the uninsured, while preserving private coverage for most people." That is a huge concession to private industry. No wonder they're keeping the meetings closed. Industry is in no hurry to allow substantial reform, and Democrats have only been at this since Roosevelt, so why not make it another 75 years? What's the rush? (See Bill Moyers on the heart wrenching, human cost of the current system here, and media research on the historical efforts to stop health care reform over the past 75 years here).

Everybody knows that Democrats have a super-majority. But need we be reminded that they could pass legislation, like the Republicans did with the Bush tax cuts, with only a simple majority----if they wanted to. Instead, we get more excuses, just as we did back when they were in the minority:

During the early Bush years, the excuse was that they endorsed Bush policies because his popularity and post-9/11 hysteria made it politically unwise to oppose him. In later Bush years when his popularity plummeted, the excuse was that Democrats were in the minority and could do nothing. After 2006 when they won a Congressional majority, the excuse was that Bush still controlled the White House and had veto power. After 2008 when a Democrat won the White House, the excuse was that Republicans could filibuster.

Now that they have a filibuster-proof majority, a huge margin in the House and the White House, the excuses continue unabated, as Democrats are now on the verge of jettisoning one of the most significant attractions for progressives to the Obama campaign -- active government involvement in the health insurance market.

Compounding the disillusionment triggered by the apparently inevitable, Democratic betrayal on this pivotal issue is the fact that the administration dropped the truly progressive agenda before even coming to the table: a single-payer, universal health care plan. In its absence, progressives were placated with a proposed "public option," which now looks to be dead unless the House grows a pair, or Obama retrieves his soul.

How Obama feels about the apparent loss of a public plan is unknowable for sure. But actions do matter, regardless of one's oratorical eloquence, and the bill that's most likely to make it through Congress does have some powerful supporters:

...the pharmaceutical industry is so delighted with what they think will be the ultimate plan that they are spending vast sums of money to advocate for it.

Also factor in

a secret White House deal with that same industry to ensure there are no government negotiations for better prices (a result that, when combined with mandates to buy health insurance, would vastly increase the profits of these industries)

And...with a White House Deputy Chief of Staff (and "Small-State" westerner), Jim Messina, ---who was formerly Chief of Staff to Senator Max Baucus, head of the disproportionately influential, anti-progressive Table of Six----working under the corporate-approved, Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, it seems more than plausible that Obama has been appropriated by anti-progressive forces.

Even take Tom Daschle, who, forced to withdraw his nomination as head of Health and Human Services because of $140,000 in unpaid back taxes, is serving as an informal advisor to Obama, despite the clear conflicts of interest: Since losing re-election in 2004, Daschle's clients have been those same private health insurance companies the government is ostensibly seeking to regulate.

...he remains a highly paid policy adviser to hospital, drug, pharmaceutical and other health care industry clients of Alston & Bird, the law and lobbying firm.

But don't worry because "Friends and associates of Mr. Daschle say the interests of Alston & Bird’s clients have no influence on his views," even though critics say he's "advocating the very policy which his industry clients want: namely, health care reform with mandates, but no 'public option' -- only with 'co-ops.'" According to the NYT, Daschle has been the main force behind selling "co-ops," a tepid measure that the Democrats and Obama are evidently finding very palatable these days. But then again, we'll just have to wait and see. Maybe progressive forces can push him back on a sustainable track, if they're loud enough.

If not, we can always revert to the early nostalgia phase, when Obama was pretending to be a "liberal" or "progressive," which among other things, currently means one who believes in, and carries out a commitment to transparency and public participation.

And don't miss this useful chart for understanding health care reform.

Note: Even Robert Reich is asking about the disproportionate and inappropriate power of the Table of Six, "Why has it come down to these six? Who anointed them? Apparently, the White House." He doesn't "get it" either:

I really don't get it. We have a Democratic president in the White House. Democrats control sixty votes in the Senate, enough to overcome a filibuster. It is possible to pass health care legislation through the Senate with 51 votes (that's what George W. Bush did with his tax cut plan). Democrats control the House. The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is a tough lady. She has said there will be no health care reform bill without a public option...So why does the fate of health care rest in Grassley's hands?

Let's hope the administration is still susceptible to hearing those beyond the private-interest forces that have invested it.