Healthcare for Dummies

A few days ago, the AARP hosted a Democratic presidential debate in Iowa. One of the main topics of discussion was healthcare, a cause once championed by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. The debate itself was the usual mishmash of meaningless campaign slogans and promises to ensure a "better healthcare system" for all Americans. But there were a couple of things conspicuously absent - content and candidates.

Senator Barack Obama was invited, but declined to participate. Also absent was Congressman Dennis Kucinich, but not for lack of interest. In fact, Kucinich wasn't even invited to the debate. An odd decision, given that Kucinich is in favour of a truly universal healthcare system for all Americans, and would have added some much needed spark to an otherwise predictable evening. Why would the AARP exclude someone like Kucinich?

Turn out the AARP is one of the largest lobby groups in the USA. It has drawn critics from both sides of the political spectrum, at once accused of being too socialist and too cozy with big Pharma. The association was however a major supporter of Medicare Part D, a stance which angered many Democrats. Part D is an addendum to the original Medicare Plan, which ostensibly permits subsidies for prescription drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries. The program is seen by critics as a boon to the Pharmaceutical industry, as it forbids the federal government from negotiating drug prices (this practice is allowed by the Veteran's Association).

Medicare pays $1,485 for Zocor, while the VA pays $127. Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress.

The two frontrunning candidates present at the debate (Edwards and Clinton) both support some form of plan which would require all Americans to buy healthcare coverage - provided by a private insurer, and possibly subsidized by the federal government. In an open letter, Kucinich asks:

Is it appropriate for AARP to be sponsoring a Democratic Presidential debate on health care while excluding the one candidate who wants to dramatically change the system from which AARP profits mightily?

Kucinich was a co-sponsor of Bill H.R. 676, legislation that proposed the creation of a National Health Program that would provide comprehensive coverage for all Americans and prohibit private insurers from selling duplicate coverage. In today's political climate, it is of course unlikely that such legislation could get off the floor. The phrase "single-payer healthcare" has become the modern day equivalent of "communism", thanks to the concerted efforts of Republicans, private insurers, and big pharma. Even Senator Clinton was quick to reassure the Iowa debate audience that her plan was "NOT a single-payer system". Kucinich has little chance of becoming President, but his exclusion from the "debate" on healthcare is a sad example of the way in which progressive thought has become marginalized in the race for 2008.

Democrats to Blame for Iraq

So hope Republican strategists, according to a recent column by Gwynne Dyer published in the Georgia Straight. In his commentary, Dyer provides sobering insight into the machinations behind the current debate over American troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Why, despite continuing evidence of failure, overwhelming public opinion, ostensible Democratic 'solidarity', and high profile Republican 'defections', has the President been able to maintain his troop surge without serious challenge? According to Dyer, it has as much to do with domestic politics as it does with on-the-ground realities in Iraq.

With respect to the latter, Dyer feels that it might still be feasible to withdraw the 160,000 US soldiers from the region in a reasonably orderly manner, but the collateral loss of life would be nothing short of tragic.

It would still be possible to get the 160,000 American troops out of Iraq without scenes reminiscent of the U.S. retreat from the Chosin Reservoir in Korea (1950), let alone the British retreat from Kabul (1842)...
...The problem is the collaborators. Tens of thousands of people will probably be killed if they don't leave Iraq when the Americans do, from humble drivers and translators all the way up to senior political and military figures who are too closely identified with the U.S. occupation forces. But given the current state of American opinion about Arabs and terrorism, the United States will not welcome Iraqi refugees today in the same way that it took in Vietnamese refugees 30 years ago.

Fair enough. But more disturbing is the consideration that the status quo will be maintained because both Democrats and Republicans have conceded that troop withdrawal prior to the next Presidential election would be of no political benefit to either party.

From the Republican perspective:

All political attention in Washington is now fixed on the November 2008 election. That is already too close for a high-speed American withdrawal from Iraq to be forgotten before the voters go to the polls, so mainstream Republican opinion will back Bush's strategy down to 2009, even in the knowledge that it will ultimately fail. The alternative, an early withdrawal, is probably worse in terms of the election outcome in Congress. (I suspect that senior Republican strategists assume that the presidency is already lost.)

And from the Democratic perspective:

If the Democrats forced a troop withdrawal now, the Republicans would accuse them of "stabbing America in the back". If the pullout comes after they win the 2008 election, then the disaster will happen on their watch, and the fickle public will already have forgotten who really caused it. So–goes the prevailing logic in the Democratic camp–let's at least win the election before we get blamed for the mess.

So Bush's strategy is to "stay the course", endure whatever losses are incurred, and pass the blame onto the next President. And the Democrats seem happy to play along, if it improves their odds of securing the next election.

We can calculate that about 2,000 more American troops will die by early 2009 in the service of these political strategies

And God knows how many more Iraqis - if it even matters to American politicians anymore.

Democrats: Winning, One Loss at a Time

Dubbya has done it again. George W. Bush -a lame duck President, riding out the second of two disastrous terms, presiding over an ill-conceived and unpopular war, enjoying the support of less than 30% of Americans, surrounded by a diminishing number of close friends many of whom are themselves under investigation for various forms of malfeasance - has managed to score a political victory over the Democratic majority in Congress.

After their first bill was vetoed, Congress yesterday reached a new low by approving almost $95 billion dollars in extra funding for the war in Iraq, without any attached withdrawal plan. Democrats then showed off their versatility - that rare combination of spinelessness and shamelessness not seen since the run-up to the war itself. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out an e-mail, bragging about their humiliating capitulation! If you have the stomach for it, you can read it here, courtesy of Daily Kos. “This debate will go on,” vowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Bravo, Nancy, bravo.

The bill establishes a series of goals for the Iraqi government to meet as it strives to build a democratic country able to defend its own borders. Continued U.S. reconstruction aid would be conditioned on progress toward the so-called benchmarks, although Mr. Bush retains the authority to order that the funds be spent regardless of how the Baghdad government performs.

All of this has no doubt been confusing for voters who elected a Democratic Congress on the promise of a "change in direction" and as a direct rebuke of the President's Iraq policy. Perhaps sensing their ownership of shamelessness slipping, House Republicans sent in their leader John Boehner to play the 9/11 card, and to tearfully reiterate the long-ago debunked myth of a link between the terror attacks and Iraq.

John Boehner of Ohio choked back tears as he stirred memories of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “After 3,000 of our fellow citizens died at the hands of these terrorists, when are we going to take them on? When are we going to defeat them,” he asked.

But Boehner needn't cry too much. When Congress plays the Shame Game, everyone's a winner.