The Senate Deal May Be a Sh*t Sandwich, but If You're Hungry Enough ...

I'm pretty far to the left, so I'm not accustomed to taking fire from that direction as I have on occasion during the debate over health-care reform. I get the sense that it's become popular in some progressive circles to demagogue both the Dems' compromised reform package and anyone who doesn't attack it with lupine ferocity (the folks over at FireDogLake have kind of gone off the deep end and are threatening a primary against Bernie Sanders, of all people, because he held his nose and voted for the bill).

I'll freely admit that I'm willing to eat a shit sandwich in order to get 31 million people decent health insurance. Maybe not a shit smorgasbord, but a sandwich. And the thing that I don't get is why others aren't just as eager to gobble it down.

Here's the thing: for my entire adult life, Congress has pushed through big legislative packages that showered tax dollars on various industries. Every single year we eat a 5-course shit-meal when the defense bill is passed. The health scheme will cost us $900 billion to set up over ten years -- then it pays for itself. The Iraq war cost $915 billion over seven years, will continue to cost us in the foreseeable future, and will come with huge long-term costs in terms of veterans' care. We got fat defense contractors -- Blackwater, anyone? -- and dead Iraqis for that one.

The bailouts... nobody really knows how much they cost. But it's a hell of a lot more in just two years then we'd spend on health-care in a decade -- it was a sumptuous feast of shit. We didn't insure 31 million people with those dollars -- we bought bonuses for Goldman Sachs execs and financed Morgan Stanley's take-overs of smaller banks.

These are just two examples. I could go on -- look at the money we spend on trade promotion, R and D for the private sector, financing organizations like the IMF that impoverish developing countries. Look at how many dollars we give in tax breaks, at every level of government, to corporations to expand or relocate. It seems very odd to me to think about drawing our line in the sand on this massive give-away -- the first one I can remember that would have real benefits for real people.

Now, I'm not fighting a straw-man here -- I know progressives weren't happy about the bailouts and the costs of our imperial wars. They're not happy about the fact that Corporate America has become the worst kind of welfare queen.

But the point is that I don't remember another shit sandwich that actually delivered something to ordinary working people.

This crap-hoagie gives free health-care to the working poor making between 100-150 percent of the poverty line. These are mostly people working minimum wage jobs who have never had guaranteed health coverage in the history of the United States. It reduces premiums by about 90 percent for those making between 150-200% of the poverty line. Yes, the mandate is a fecal dumpling, but these folks will be able to afford health-care for the first time. It drops the cost of insurance for all families making less than $86K per year. The under-employed, free-lancers -- all the people who have to shop for coverage in the individual and small-group markets are going to be able to buy decent coverage at an affordable cost for the first time.

So my point is, with all the shit we've eaten with absolutely nothing to show for it, I don't understand getting all  grossed out the first time munching some crap might actually, you know, help some Americans at the bottom of the income ladder. Why go all scorched earth over this one?

You know what was a really bad health-care bill? Bush's Medicare part D. Guess what? It cost just 25 percent more than this scheme, and it delivered very little to the nation's seniors. I may be wrong, but I don't recall people being half as pissed off by that monstrosity Bush and the GOP passed as they are over the Dems' scheme.

Now, we all know I'll be accused of being a sniveling, faux-progressive Obamabot sell-out for holding this view -- mostly because a good share of the population have simply lost their minds over this issue. But I want to make something clear that I think got lost a bit in yesterday's post: I am not suggesting progressives hold their collective nose and accept just anything that comes out at the end of the day. 

What I am advocating is that they stop the damn whining about how Obama betrayed them -- not only because it's making my head hurt, but also because whining and feeling sorry for oneself are pretty ineffective political tools -- and focus on forcing some concessions that would make the final bill better than what the Senate passed this morning. That's called "exercising power."

Here's how the Blue Dogs do it: they say, 'if I don't get this, that and the other, I'm going to join the GOP in voting against this thing even if it means destroying my own party's electoral fortunes for the next 10 years and undermining America's first African-American president.' It's like the scene in Blazing Saddles where the hero sticks a gun to his own head and holds himself hostage:

Bart: [low voice] Hold it! Next man makes a move, the nig*er gets it!
Olson Johnson: Hold it, men. He's not bluffing.
Dr. Sam Johnson: Listen to him, men. He's just crazy enough to do it!
Bart: [low voice] Drop it! Or I swear I'll blow this nig*er's head all over this town!

Olson Johnson is Harry Reid, and Dr. Sam Johnson is Nancy Pelosi, and they keep getting rolled with this trick.

The thing is: those Blue Dogs want to get something passed too! They don't want to go into next year's elections without any major achievements any more than liberal members of the House do. The way I see it, progressives should be playing the same game. Remember, this is the 7th president to try to reform health-care -- none have gotten nearly as close to a signable bill as this one. So instead of trying to torpedo the effort, I think progressives and liberals should be focused laser-like on a few key issues that would make this shit-sandwich palatable.

That means defining concrete demands. If I were a member of Congress, I'd insist on two concessions. First, they have to water down the abortion language so it doesn't effectively put the procedure out of reach of most women. This should be doable -- we already have a federal ban on funding abortions, so what they need is one of those legislative fig-leaves that would allow Stupak to vote for the final package without actually screwing over American women.

I certainly couldn't support a final bill with the language currently in the House version.

Second, the Senate bill pays for a good chunk of the up-front costs with a tax on what are being spun as "Cadillac" health insurance policies. That's bullshit -- with the cost of health coverage spiraling upwards, and most cost-containment measures already stripped from the legislation, a lot of unionized workers would end up paying the tax. That's regressive and needs to go.

The House bill is instead financed in part with a surtax on the millionaires who reaped in massive tax breaks over the past 9 years. Using the House's approach is not only far more progressive, but also seems like a great fight to have politically.

In other words, what I'm advocating is that progressives forget the conventional wisdom that says we have to accept the Senate bill or else Ben Nelson will destroy Obama's presidency. If we were to coalesce around some concrete demands, then we could have a conversation about what Obama and the Democratic leadership need to do to keep Sherrod Brown's vote, for a change. 

So what I'm saying is quit whining, and exercise power. It's what right-wingers do (actually they whine even while exercising power, but you get my point).