[Peace-discuss] why a substantive change in health care isunlikely

[Laurie Solomon]

In a very general sort of way, I agree with your points, Carl.  I do have to 
raise some interesting questions with respect to items in your points #3 and 
#4.

First, I have to wonder if over the course of history the referent political 
actors have not changed so that the notion of "individual" in a contemporary 
democracy refers to corporate actors and not people - even the CEOs and 
stockholders of the corporations - as the entities represented in a 
democracy under current democratic theory.   Hence the term "corporate 
Capitalism, which in political terms might be "Corporate Democracy.  Humans 
in both the economic and political system being for the most part cogs in 
the machinery of the political-economic system and not the machinery or part 
of the machinery itself.

Second, I have to wonder if "democracy" as traditionally defined is at all 
possible under any forms of so-called "representative democracy" since all 
forms of representative  democracy takes real control away from the populous 
and places it in the autocratic hands of a few representatives whose 
selection and election - at best - comprises an ineffective method of 
control by the people as individuals as contrasted to organized groups and - 
at worst - no control at all.  Winner take all types of elections as opposed 
to proportional types of elections does not help matters, nor does the 
reliance on professional bureaucratic staffs by elected officials.  Since 
"direct democracy" in which real individual humans  are the participating 
actors and not legally fictitious actors and in which the people being 
represented are the people participating in the policy making and decision 
making on a daily bases  and are not relying on surrogates to do it for them 
is not possible in today's large complex societies, I have to wonder if the 
whole notion of democracy is dead as a viable concept or basis for 
organizing government.  I think recent elections the past several decades or 
more in the U.S. and elsewhere give evidence of the workability of the 
concept in a contemporary world where the machinery of government seems to 
run on inertia independent of the humans who man or run that machinery.

Thirdly, given my points #1 and #2, I have to wonder if continuing to push 
the notions of democracy as viable objectives and as criteria by which to 
judge governments is not propagating an obsolete myth that gives rise to 
false hopes and ineffective reforms and strategies for systemic change.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 11:39 AM
To: "E.Wayne Johnson" <ewj at pigs.ag>
Cc: "peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] why a substantive change in health care 
isunlikely

> [1] By "administration" I meant the button-men, rather than the godfather.
>
> [2] It's a fairly central point of modern society that the people who do 
> the work (even health-care providers) are often different from the people 
> who profit.  But it is true that the nature of the work can be corrupted 
> by the 'needs' of profit.
>
> [3] I agree with your analysis, but the solution I would propose would not 
> be to remove the government from the picture.  Rather get the government, 
> ostensibly run by and working for the majority, to be/do so in fact. And 
> that takes a political movement (probably not the Republicans or 
> Democrats).
>
> [4] Democracy "means that the central institutions of society have to be 
> under popular control. Now, under capitalism, we can't have democracy by 
> definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of 
> society are in principle under autocratic control. Thus, a corporation or 
> an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; 
> that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be 
> established at every level -- there's little bargaining, a little give and 
> take, but the line of authority is perfectly straightforward. Just as I'm 
> opposed to political fascism, I'm opposed to economic fascism. I think 
> that until the major institutions of society are under the popular control 
> of participants and communities, it's pointless to talk about democracy." 
> (Noam Chomsky)
>
>
> E.Wayne Johnson wrote:
>> For "administration" I would put "entrenched oligarchy that runs the 
>> country".
>>
>> I perceive the health care providers themselves to be a part of the
>> health insurance "industry" - the medical-industrial complex.
>>
>> ***
>>
>> I would agree that the forces of the medical-industrial complex have 
>> taken great advantage of the groundswell of anti-government and 
>> anti-Obama sentiment and to some extent astroturfed and played the tea 
>> party-ers. Outfits like the Newt Gingrich crowd and Americans for 
>> Prosperity, Pajamas TV, Michelle Malkin, Fred Thompson and the 
>> quasi-faux-libertarians like GlennBeck have all tried to get some spin 
>> from the tea parties, but in general, the original grassroots are wise to 
>> those cats as being establishment GOP neocons who are trying to con the 
>> teaparties.
>>
>> The Orwellian line that those neocons would never use but seems 
>> attractive to me is "Federal Government Run Health Care - from the people 
>> who brought you Afghanistan, Iraq, the Balkan War, Vietnam, the FDA and 
>> the IRS.  We're the Government.  We're here to help you.  Trust US."
>>
>> I think the fundamental problem is that the government institutions are 
>> truly not worthy of trust because they do represent the interests of the 
>> elitist oligarchy and certainly not the interests of the people (at all).
>>
>> I think that Chomsky's observations from the Bedeutung article are 
>> significant:
>> "...the majority of American people today don’t accept the assumption 
>> that it is they who create their institutions and who run their country. 
>> The last time I looked at the polls, about 80% of the population felt 
>> that the government is made up of a few big interests looking out for 
>> themselves and not for the people...Although I don’t have the exact 
>> figures at hand, there’s a very striking fact: opinions of Congress are 
>> extremely low – in the teens. Nevertheless, probably 98% of incumbents 
>> get re-elected. What this tells you is that, essentially, people are 
>> aware that they don’t have a choice and that they’re not taking part in 
>> running the country. ...take April 15th, the day when taxes are paid. In 
>> a democratic society, where people would feel that they are shaping their 
>> own lives, this would be a day of celebration. The spirit would be “We’re 
>> getting together as a community to put our resources into implementing 
>> policies that we have chosen”. What could be better than that? Well, that’s 
>> not the way it is here. Instead, it’s a day of mourning when some alien 
>> force which has nothing to do with us comes to steal our hard-earned 
>> money.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "C. G. Estabrook" 
>> <galliher at illinois.edu>
>> To: "E.Wayne Johnson" <ewj at pigs.ag>
>> Cc: "peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 9:01 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] why a substantive change in health care 
>> isunlikely
>>
>>
>>> The reason that "a substantive change in health care is unlikely" is 
>>> that the administration is unwilling to do anything in anyway to harm 
>>> the profits of the health insurance "industry."  If they were, they 
>>> could do so with their political and propaganda resources.
>>>
>>> That's what they've done in regard to to the AfPak war.  The polls 
>>> showed about the same division on that as on healthcare when Obama began 
>>> selling escalation -- 40% in favor of the war, 56% opposed to it.
>>>
>>>
>>> E.Wayne Johnson wrote:
>>>> I really think that the reason that we are not going to get substantive 
>>>> change in health care is that the limited debate has not included the 
>>>> necessary questions.  I think the health care system in the US is very 
>>>> bad indeed, but change will be slow in coming.
>>>>  Whether Rasmussen is right or not, the health care reform project 
>>>> lacks support and is likely to incite significant resistance.
>>>>  *********
>>>>  ...47% trust the private sector more than government to keep health 
>>>> care costs down and the quality of care up. Two-thirds (66%) say an 
>>>> increase in free market competition will do more than government 
>>>> regulation to reduce health care costs.  ... 71% of voters nationwide 
>>>> say they’re at least somewhat angry about the current policies of the 
>>>> federal government. That’s up five points from September. The overall 
>>>> figure includes 46% who are Very Angry.
>>>>
>>>> Rasmussen Poll - Health Care Reform
>>>> 40% Support Health Care Plan, 56% Oppose It
>>>> Monday, December 14, 2009
>>>>  Fifty-six percent (56%) of U.S. voters now oppose the health care plan 
>>>> proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the 
>>>> highest level of opposition found - reached three times before - in six 
>>>> months of polling.
>>>>  The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 
>>>> 40% of voters favor the health care plan...
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>