Well, the health care charade is almost over. Now that the Senate has voted for no public option, the two parties can rest easy - the status quo will be preserved or, as some argue, the insurance companies will actually make out better, that is, earn more profit, under our "reformed" health insurance system. For anyone who doubts that (a) our political system is oligarchic and (b) that the two parties collude to maintain the oligarchy, an explanation of this outcome is necessary. But at least as important is the explanation for why the public option was dumped: Because, Baucus said, we were powerless to do otherwise. Doing otherwise would doom the "reform." So, I might paraphrase Baucus' thinking here: "Let us doom reform and pretend that we were, we mighty U.S. Senators, overwhelmed by forces much stronger than we! This is all we could do!" Is there a more pathetic sight than powerless Senators? Believe that and I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. And, of course, where was Obama in all of this? Where was the man who put together such a powerful election machine, who mobilized all those people to vote for him, to vote for "change?" Amazing, is it not, how incompetent, how indecisive Obama became? Again, for those who think the two party system is actually a two party system, Obama's disappearance needs an explanation.
Now for those who were opposed to a public option or to genuine health insurance reform, please take note: The outcome had nothing to do with what you wanted done even though it coincides with what you wanted done. The outcome was dictated by the needs of the oligarchy, especially the need to preserve their status quo. The point is this: You may want to think that you had an impact on the final outcome of the health insurance debate, but you did not. So, take heed, when another issue comes down the pike, the outcome might or might not what you want. But whether it is or not has nothing or very little to do with the fact you wanted it. Such is life in an oligarchy disguised as a "republic."
Let's recap. We're about to require that insurance companies:
ReplyDelete1) Sell insurance to everyone regardless of risk
2) Provide limitless coverage to those people
3) Submit to a price cap.
Imagine you had a mansion full of priceless art and someone set it on fire. Would it be rational to expect anyone to insure that property for any price? Would it benefit the insurer to be forced to do so?
If insurance companies are part of the oligarchy that allegedly orchestrated this result then I'm amazed that the conspiracy has persisted for so long. On the other hand, perhaps I need to start buying the extra-thick tin foil from now on.
Well, I will rest my case with the bottom line. If the insurance companies start making less money as a result of this "reform," then I will agree with you. Otherwise, I will stick with the argument that we do live in an oligarchy and that our two party system is anything but....
ReplyDelete