Can the Townhallers Be Left, Rather Than Left Behind?
by: Dean Baker,
t r u t h o u t: September 21, 2009
The size and energy at the anti-health care reform protests last weekend
were impressive. While some of the leaders are clearly racist nutballs, who
can't accept that an African-American is in the White House, many of the
tens of thousands who showed up in Washington and elsewhere came out in
response to their perception of a government that does not respond to
ordinary people.
They have a basis for this complaint. It is hardly a secret that
President Obama cut deals with the health insurance industry, the
pharmaceutical industry, and other powerful interest groups. This may have
been necessary for him to get a health package through Congress, but it's
hard to blame people for being suspicious.
Many of the protesters were not against the government playing a role in
health care. In fact, one of the mostly widely expressed concerns was that
the President Obama's health care plan would worsen the quality of Medicare.
Supporters of reform believe that this reform will be a step forward in
providing quality health care for everyone, but how confident can anyone be
in this view? If there is no public insurance option, as is likely to be the
case, how confident can we be that regulators will prevent the sort of
abuses that are currently widespread in the insurance industry?
Insurance companies may not be able to deny coverage based on
pre-existing conditions, but that doesn't mean that they will necessarily
pay claims. In the post-reform world many families may find they have as
much trouble getting insurers to pay claims as they do today. They may also
find that insurers don't include adequate lists of specialists in network,
thereby forcing patients to either incur large expenses for going out of
network or wait months for treatment.
Supporters of reform believe that regulators will act to prevent such
abuses by insurers, but there is not much reason for this confidence. Under
any version of reform likely to pass, most insurance regulation will still
be at the state level. Many state regulators do not have a good track record
of reining in abuses by the insurance industry.
What do we get if the federal government requires people to buy
insurance, which quite possibly would be bad insurance, and provides
subsidies to do so? By definition this would mean more people have
insurance, but it doesn't mean that people will have good health care. And,
in the process, we will have made the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical
industry and the hospital industry considerably more profitable.
This is an example of what was known in last fall's presidential
campaign as "spreading the wealth around," but as is generally the case in
this country, the direction of redistribution is upward. The government
would be taxing ordinary people and/or requiring them to make direct
payments to insurers in order to enrich major corporations and their top
executives. Certainly, the townhallers have every right to be upset about
being forced to give their money to the multi-millionaires running United
Health, Cigna, and the rest.
This suggests two obvious options. First, we can go back to the much
maligned public option. As my libertarian friends used to say in other
contexts: "what's wrong with giving people a choice?" We know why the
insurance industry hates the public option: They don't like competition. But
what possible reason can the townhallers have for objecting to giving people
a choice? It is an option. If they don't like it, they don't have to eat it.
Surely, someone with President Obama's communication skills can make this
point.
Suppose the insurance industry is so powerful that it succeeds in
keeping the public option off the table. There is no reason to let these
guys just run off with our money. There is another possible route to limit
the upward redistribution of income, if not to limit abuses. We simply
impose compensation restrictions on the executives of insurance companies
who benefit from the public subsidies.
In other words, if insurers enroll people with a subsidy from the
government, then the pay of their executives (including stock options,
bonuses, executive jets etc.) will be capped at $2 million or $3 million,
rather than the $30 million, $40 million or $50 million that some of these
honchos currently rake in. This would be an entirely voluntary pay
restriction. If the execs don't want their pay restricted, then they don't
have to accept the public subsidies.
It is clear that most of the health care reform protesters don't have a
clear conception of the policy issues. But they do have a real basis for
concern that they are about to be ripped off for the benefit of the rich and
powerful. It would be nice if those of us who support reform could honestly
assure them that this is not the case.
***
http://www.truthout.org/092409A?n
Ending Minority Rule in California: One Sentence Can Do It
by: George Lakoff,
t r u t h o u t: September 24, 2009
California is in deep trouble because it has a dysfunctional system of
government. Much of the problem can be change by one sentence.
I have sent to the attorney general a ballot proposition for the 2010
ballot called The California Democracy Act, the content of which is the
following: All legislative action on revenue and budget must be determined
by a majority vote.
It would change two words in the Constitution, turning "two-thirds" to
"majority" in two places. It is simple, understandable and it is about
democracy.
I will be speaking on this in Los Angeles Thursday night. (See note
below.)
As I see it, democracy is the main issue in the governance of our state.
The two-thirds rules have an anti-democratic effect. Our legislature is
currently under minority rule. One-third plus one - only 34 percent -of
either the Assembly or Senate can block the will of the majority until their
demands are met. This is undemocratic.
Minority rule is why we have gridlock in the legislature. Minority rule
has brought our state to near bankruptcy, causing crises throughout the
state.
A majority of California voters have elected a majority of the state
legislators, and that majority is responsible and, so far as I can tell,
overwhelmingly dedicated to sane fiscal management and to serving the needs
of our citizens. But they are handcuffed by minority rule.
Democracy can work in California. What the majority of voters want, a
majority in the legislature will enact. And it only takes a majority of
voters to enact that one-sentence amendment.
Changing the vote requirement to a majority for budget and revenue will
ensure that California's budget can meet the state's needs and be passed on
time. One sentence can end economic uncertainty and provide for an improved
credit rating, for payment of our bills with money instead of IOUs, and will
bring stability to our schools, nursing homes and universities. One sentence
can make California a well-run state again.
How does minority rule happen? By trickery. Don't be fooled. The way a
minority of one-third plus one comes to run the show is by imposing a 2/3
rule. It may sound more democratic, but it is less democratic. It allows a
minority to rule by gridlock, by thwarting the will of the majority in the
legislature, and hence, a majority of the voters in the state.
No other state is run by such a minority. In no other state can a
ruthless minority cause the chaos, disruption, pain and near-bankruptcy that
our state has suffered. A majority of the voters can end the tyranny of the
minority.
Democracy means majority rule. One sentence will do the job.
Of course, there will be a blowback. Conservatives will say, as they
always do, that this is just a ruse to raise taxes.
But this is about democracy, not about how or whether revenues are
raised. What the majority of citizens want, a majority of elected
representatives will enact. The question is simple: Do you want democracy?
Here's what government is about in a democracy. Government has two
sacred moral missions: to protect and empower its citizens.
Protection starts with police and public safety and extends to
protection for consumers, for our food, for workers, for the elderly, for
those sick and helpless, for the environment and for investors.
Empowerment is what allows us to earn a living and live decent lives:
public roads and buildings; a working power grid; water; a basic educational
system; a system of public health and nursing homes; a system of higher
education with advanced research in medicine, computing, and agriculture;
banks and insurance companies you can trust and a court system that works.
No one earns a living in California without protection and empowerment
by the government. No one makes it without all of these things. Without
them, the California Dream becomes a nightmare. Without revenue and a
sensible budget, there can be no protection and no empowerment, and the
world's seventh largest and richest economy starts to look like a
third-world country.
Minority rule is closing California. State parks: closed. Schools:
closed. Fire departments: closed. Nursing homes: closed. Medical clinics:
closed. Libraries: closed.
We do not have to stand for it.
The majority of voters choose the majority of legislators. That's simple
democracy. When the majority of legislators rule, the majority of voters
rule.
Can this work? It can, with strong support. What is needed is a serious
campaign making the case for democracy, and allowing the voters to see that
minority rule is the root of the problem.
Since the minority is a strongly conservative Republican minority,
progressive Democrats running for the legislature in 2010 can run on a
prodemocracy platform, placing the blame for gridlock where it belongs, on
their opponents.
The main question is whether we can run such a campaign successfully.
That is simply a matter of organization, commitment, support, and funding.
None of those is trivial. But we know how to do them.
George Lakoff is the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of
Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at
Berkeley. He is the author of "The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand
21st Century Politics With an 18th Century Brain." His latest book, "The
Political Mind," appeared in paperback on June 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment