What does it say when the President leaves it up to Congress (i.e. the legislators, i.e. the lawmakers) to come up with a plan to reform American health care—although said President has campaigned on such reforms and, even at a low point in the President’s popularity, 70% of the US population (i.e. we the people who voted the legislators and the President into office) still support the most liberal version of such a plan—and yet, and yet, said Congress has not been able to hash out even a halfway acceptable plan because the legislators’ constituents matter less than the health insurance companies that stuff the politicians’ campaign chests?
What does that say?
"I, out of an effort to give Congress the ability to do their thing and not step on their toes,” the President told ABC's Good Morning America this morning, with heaps of irony, “probably left too much ambiguity out there, which allowed then opponents of reform to come in and to fill up the airwaves with a lot of nonsense."
So tonight President Obama is going to speak to the people and supposedly explain to us and our Senators and Representatives what exactly he means by “health care reform” as well as, one hopes (but with little confidence), why exactly it may not be the best idea in the world to leave the matter of health-care decisions in the hands of insurers, who fucked it up in the first place … who do, in fact, already convene “death panels” to decide the fates of poor putzes who have made them rich on premium payments that somehow never translate to assured medical treatment … who do, in fact, already limit the choices of physicians and hospitals permissible under the insured’s respective plans.
And what does it say that said President’s address to the nation (carried on all major networks, except Fox—Fox, which will broadcast So You Think You Can Dance for the sake of those for whom rumba auditions are more pressing than the high cost and low success rate of American medicine) will occur on the eve of the Supreme Court’s hearing (at its own insistence) the case for letting corporations have unhindered influence in the course of American political campaigns and elections in the future, reversing decades of attempted (though flawed) protections on our democratic processes.
No, no, no, no, NO.
No to corporate personhood!
No to the idea that health insurers should sit at the table and decide how to turn a ruse of “health care reform” into bigger profits—with the government mandating our universal patronage of a corrupt system, with hardly any regulation on pricing and benign negligence on safety and best practices!
No to the assumption that it is the place of the Executive Branch (not the people, whose general mandate has been crystal clear for 10 months now—despite corporate media’s flourishing of attention to sideshow demonstrations by the pathetically misinformed) to inspire and stage-manage the formation of laws protective of the people’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!
If I ruled the world, as they say, insurance (private carriers or public option) would not even be the issue—but rather public clinics and public hospitals, staffed with publicly-funded doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and technology providing high quality health care to all US residents—yes, I do mean “socialized medicine,” by whatever new name you want to call it—but, but, but that is socialism! I know. I know. And according to WHO statistics on health, longevity, disease prevention, and overall costs, it’s better than what the US free market now provides.