Who's Surprised Now? (And for How Long Can They Stay That Way?)

Image: Gilbert Garcin. Le moulin de l’oubli - Mill of oblivion. 1999.

Anyone really surprised, like Mr. Harkin was, that Obama didn't try and lobby Lieberman on the public option? Of course not. Not if you're paying even marginal attention to the health care "debate."

What's a supposed progressive being so gullible and credulous for anyway? Assuming Harkin actually is "surprised," it's probably painful to realize the scope of the Democratic Party's corporate give away, and know that this bill was not inevitable: It was willed that way. This corporate nanny-state mandate, forcing people to purchase insurance without a strong public option, is a kind of audacity that the market is rewarding generously. Glenn Greenwald's post today illustrates just how much health insurance stocks have gone up since Lieberman stated he'd filibuster on the public option:

*Coventry Health Care, Inc. is up 31.6 percent;

* CIGNA Corp. is up 29.1 percent;

* Aetna Inc. is up 27.1 percent;

* WellPoint, Inc. is up 26.6 percent;

* UnitedHealth Group Inc. is up 20.5 percent;

* And Humana Inc. is up 13.6 percent" -- Shahien Nasiripour, The Huffington Post's business reporter, yesterday.

He also points out just how riven the Democratic Party is with conflicts of interest relating to this bill (It's worth quoting in full):

Evan Bayh's wife, Susan, "owns from $500,001 to $1 million in employee stock in WellPoint, the Indianapolis-based insurance giant on whose board she sits." That would mean that the value of her personal holdings in that one health insurance company alone, in the last six weeks alone (since Lieberman and her husband began menacing the public option), would have increased by a value of between $125,000 and $250,000. As part of the bonanza of health care industry board positions she magically received since her husband became a Senator, Susan Bayh is given a quarter-million dollars each year in stocks and stock options from Wellpoint.

But notwithstanding the underlying corruption, the question for progressives still remains: Do the benefits of the bill outweigh the drawbacks? Greenwald astutely--and rightly--frames the choice for progressives this way:

one must weigh (a) the corrupt, mandate-based strengthening of the private insurance industry, the major advancement of the corporatism model of government...[and] (b) the various substantial benefits to many people who do not now have and cannot obtain health insurance and the risk that defeat of this bill will ensure preservation of the status quo.

A difficult question to answer, indeed. But whatever one's position, I agree with Greenwald that it is still excruciating to watch the Dems play this off as if they got the votes to pass this bill in the Senate despite all the "special interests." For more on the merits of supporting this bill or not, TPM has an excellent discussion with many smart and wonky guest bloggers.

______________________________________________

And... as if there really needs to be a defense of the notion that presidents actually can keep their promises once elected, David Sirota offers a much needed civics lesson to Obama apologists. His defense of actual, republican democracy, is centered around Obama's utterly hypocritical capitulation to the pharmaceutical industry:

the Obama administration crushed legislation that would have allowed Americans to purchase lower-priced FDA-approved medicines from abroad — legislation President Obama promised to support as a presidential candidate; legislation that would have reduced drug profiteering and saved the government and consumers $100 billion.

I wonder if Harkin is surprised by that reversal? He shouldn't be. Sadly, this president has been continuing many of his predecessor's destructive policies (state secrets privilege, tiered justice system, civil liberties violations, bailouts with no regulation, use of private contractors and mercenaries, collective punishment of civilian populations: see--Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and most recently Yemen, etc., etc.). And so this is just more of the same. As Stephen Colbert puts it, and I'm paraphrasing, "The lack of change is the change you can believe in."

In defense of reneging on campaign promises---and right on cue---a pharmaceutical spokesperson pulled out that old, tired canard: "It's about being a candidate as opposed to being president." Remember, "serious" people acknowledge, and then submit to domestic "realpolitik."

But Sirota drills this excuse---this "logic":

...it's not unreasonable to ask officeholders to at least try to honor the campaign commitments that informed voters' electoral decisions.

That's especially true on something like drug importation, whose opposition is about enlarging profits, not, as Obama aides argue, about protecting consumer safety.

Drug companies already manufacture medicines in the developing world so as to evade U.S. labor, environmental and safety regulations. They then legally import those products for sale to Americans at inflated prices. The new bill would have merely let wholesalers, not just manufacturers, also import medicines — but at the lower prices the manufacturers concurrently sell those medicines abroad.

He goes on to remind the administration (and its defenders) that wholesale importation is legal in the rest of the civilized world, and that if it were unsafe, "then where are the dead Europeans?" Do we see a pattern of behavior with Obama yet?

So in short: this major point of contention that divides progressives over the health care debate, whether to pass a bill that clearly forces people to become customers of private enterprise, is obviously part of a larger issue, and is a grave problem that Americans have to face: the confluence of private power and government. There is no escaping this fact. And Senator Harkin (and Obama acolytes) should know that, should recognize that, and stop being so (willfully?) surprised.

Thankfully, we've got Colbert, who once again, knocks it out of the park with a genius piece of satire (He is the only man who can string together both Jefferson and Mussolini).

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Spyvate Sector
http://www.colbertnation.com/
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Economy

Now let's show corporate America what we think by going to the mall and celebrating the holidays!

A Perfect Semblance

With all the contentious disputation over the health care debate, I felt it necessary to educate myself about many of the main proposals and key players in the Senate. During that process of getting familiar with these advocates and their policy ideas, one invariably comes across that infamous and ignoble group of senators we've all now become so familiar with: the Gang of Six and the so-called Blue Dogs, who have been working indefatigably to stymie actual, progressive reform. Of that latter group, there is one senator, who like Lieberman, often goes about the airwaves demanding that Dems craft the health care bill in a fashion more to his liking.

And that man is Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska----to whom, despite my initial unfamiliarity and lack of sympathy for his views, I still felt some kind of nebulous connection, as if he came from some distant, dark childhood memory. That was until yesterday, when it became clear to me as I listened to David Bowie on my ipod. After several frustrating months wondering how I knew Ben Nelson, the mystery ended with a euphoric, "That's fuckin' it!"

Ben Nelson used to be an actor, and starred in one of the most profound movies ever made---one I still cherish today as an adult.

Bill Nelson played Hoggle in Jim Henson's Labyrinth.

If one has any doubts, just look at the semblance below: although---granted----the Ben Nelson of today looks a lot older and more troll-like. But in his heart, just as his character, Hoggle, Nelson has proved willing to sell out. And he'll do it again in the future. But will he ever try and redeem himself from this betrayal, as his troll character, Hoggle, did in the end? Not likely. He'll stay unrepentant.

Hoggle explains his recent vote:

“Without in any way intending to be threatening, to be more in the mode of promising,” Mr. Nelson said, “let me be clear, this cloture vote is based on the full understanding that there will be a limited conference between the Senate and House. If there are material changes in that conference report different from this bill that adversely affect the agreement, I reserve the right to vote against the next cloture vote. Let me repeat it. I reserve the right to vote against the next cloture vote if there are material changes to this agreement in the conference report. And I will vote against it, if that is the case.”

And what did Hoggle get in exchange for being the holdout? Not only will there be strong restrictions on the use of insurance to pay for abortions, but Nebraska has been excepted from helping to fund the new expansion of Medicaid:

The bill calls for broadly expanding Medicaid, the federal-state insurance program for low-income Americans, and eventually most states would have to bear some of the cost – but not Nebraska.

Next, we'll look at the arguments for whether or not one should hold a candidate accountable for his or her campaign promises. And we'll peep at the "progress" Dems are making on drug re-importation, which was a major sticking point against Bush, but apparently no big deal now that Rahm Emanuel et al. are at the helm.

What is happening so that nothing substantial can possibly happen

After a long, healthy absence from ranting into the Ether----the disillusionment and fatalism gets to be a little much ("Who, if I cried out, would hear me among the angels' hierarchies?)----it's time to check out where I left off...

But first: If you love The Simpsons, don't look at this extremely dismaying piece of information. Bart Simpson's voice just might not be the same afterwards. (Incidentally, the cult of Mithras was big around the time of Rome's collapse. Madonna and faux Kabbalah, anyone?)

Anyways, back to where I left off, the great swindle that is "health care reform." A lot has happened so that nothing substantial, and some things very harmful to us "consumers of health care," can also happen-----possibly.

We'll see.

But...Despite the fact that the general public, along with a 63% majority of doctors, is behind actual, God's-honest health care reform (ie---a choice between a private and public option), Congress is preparing to pass a bill that equates to unequivocal betrayal. Well, that's not exactly true, unless we're talking about the intentions of the Democratic Party because Republicans made it unambiguously clear from the start that they didn't want reform. And here they are again today repeating their intentions to obstruct. Go figure?

Unsurprisingly, the so-called Blue Dogs, the conservative small-state-dominated Group of Six, and Joseph Lieberman are all providing the GOP with a big assist: Not that the White House is flexing any muscle to help pass anything even remotely progressive. On the contrary, true to the argument of the last post, Rahm Emanuel is advising Reid to capitulate to Senator Lieberschmuck. Not only is there not going to be a strong public option, but the latest compromise, a reduction in the age at which people may buy into Medicare, looks D-E-A-D!

Rachel Maddow has an excellent piece on the hypocrisy of Lieberman's current filibuster threat. Mr. Filibuster himself, with his Droopy voice, used to lament the ability of the minority to obstruct the process, even crafting anti-filibuster legislation, only to now employ said weapon to halt reform and protect his insurance lobby paymasters. He is also flipping his position on buying into Medicare earlier, mainly because that proposal is actually possible today, with Democratic majorities in both Houses, and Obama ostensibly at the helm of the Executive (So far though, his strong, posturing rhetoric and lack of any tough regulations on the banks and private health insurers, leads me to believe he's not courageous enough to truly lead, instead of heeding the demands of Big Business, those entities that will determine in which direction corporate money will flow into the next election: power for its own sake apparently, as selling out "health care reform" will be its means).

Lieberman the scape goat? No doubt. I can already see the crocodile tears gushing from the Iron Dome of the White House. And by the way: this kind of filibustering is a new development. We're not even talking about filibustering the passage of a bill; we're talking about filibustering to prohibit a bill from going to the floor for debate. Now that is conviction in Washington that only money could buy. Although, it's not a great precedent to set, allowing this kind of filibustering in a legislative system that is inherently constricted in its ability to pass new laws.

Yes, Lieberman, and the like, will be the convenient excuse for the failure of a substantial bill, even though 81% of Dems want the senator punished. Besides, all the legislation our cynical, nominal representatives have written thus far wouldn't take effect until WAY in the future anyways----2014!* So it's all pipe dreams we're discussing right now: Welcome to mandates, astoundingly high premiums and higher subsidies for private insurance that will continue consolidating the market even further, taking more shares as it shits out its globally-inferior, incomparably expensive health care product onto us all! And if we are lucky: there will be no exceptions on pre-existing conditions. Hooray, the Congress will have finally solved the moral equivalent of making sure cancer patients aren't denied coverage because they once had acne as teenagers! That's categorical imperative for you all right.

*(Coincidentally, 2014 is also when we will first be able to read the 22 million "missing" Bush administration emails, thanks to a two-year legal battle). But, four years is forever politically---plenty of time for a new Congress and/or administration to repeal the tepid, compromise health bill should it even pass).

Lastly, how about this for a excellent illustration of just how endemic the corruption of the conservative, corporate-approved, New Democratic Party is? (Clinton's betrayal on NAFTA and "welfare reform" set an illuminating precedent; the Reagan Revolution and neo-conservatism didn't just change Republican politics). The once-Vice-Presidential hopeful, Senator Evan Bayh (Ind), whose conflict of interests sadly mirror Lieberman's in scope, has a wife who raked in $837,000 while sitting on seven different corporate boards. But that's not it:

"She's on the board of E*Trade Bank, a subsidiary of E*Trade Financial Corp., while her husband sits on the Senate Banking Committee. She is lead director at Emmis Communications Corp., an Indianapolis radio-station operator that published Evan Bayh's 2003 book."

Wait, there's more:

She is a director at Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc., "which is part of a medical research partnership awarded a $24.7 million federal grant in May after Evan Bayh and his Indiana colleagues in Congress recommended the group to the National Institutes of Health,'' Bloomberg's Timothy Burger reports.

Too much. Way too much, but it only scratches the surface...

Quick, must watch "Theatre of Gatos" to repair soul...getting...weak...need to see...Gatitos...So Sweetos... No Son...Malditos....