I was standing outside the U.S. Supreme Court
holding a sign that said "Single
Payer Now, Strike Down the Obama Mandate." It was the second day of argument
on the Affordable Care Act. As I watched the crowds it was evident this was an
organized partisan event.
As the Washington Post reports, the
mandate was a Republican idea that originated with conservatives: " The tale begins in the
late 1980s, when conservative economists such as Mark Pauly, a professor at the
University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of business, were searching for
ways to counter liberal calls for government-sponsored universal health
coverage. Pauly then proposed a mandate requiring everyone to obtain this
minimum coverage, thus guarding against free-riders...Health policy analysts at
the conservative Heritage Foundation, led by Stuart Butler, picked up the idea
and began developing it for lawmakers in Congress. The Heritage Foundation
worked with then-Gov. Mitt Romney (R) to pass Massachusetts' 2006 health reform
law, which required all Bay State citizens to purchase coverage."
Someone
from the Heritage Foundation came up to us, wanting to take a photo of our sign. I asked him -- does the Heritage Foundation
oppose the mandate? He said "yes." I told him that the idea came out of the
Heritage Foundation. He looked confused,
mumbled an unclear answer "not since 2006" and walked away.
Of
course, Democrats opposed this Republican idea.
They saw it for what it is: a massive giveaway to the insurance industry
that will lead to their entrenchment and continued domination of heath care. The idea was used by Republicans to oppose
the Clinton health plan. Of course, the Clinton's opposed it. But, by the 2008
presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton supported the mandate (by then the
insurance industry was a big financial backer of hers), but candidate Barack
Obama opposed it. One of his campaign advertisements said: "What's she not telling you about her health-care
plan? It forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it, and you
pay a penalty if you don't."
So, while I was out
there watching groups like the National Organization for
Women, who supports single payer favoring this pro-insurance law, as part
of a coalition of Democratic Party aligned groups, I thought, what if President
McCain had passed this law. My
conclusion, we'd have the same people out here protesting, they'd just reverse
sides. This
was really not about healthcare, it was about Obama vs. the Republicans in this
2012 election year.
The people protesting followed their leader's orders,
said the chants they were told to say, and held the signs they were given to
hold, but they were confused. When
we talked to people on both sides the partisan confusion was evident.
My colleague, Margaret
Flowers, asked two women carrying an Americans for Prosperity sign (a group
opposed to Obama's law) whether they were on Medicare. They said "yes." "Do you like it?" Again, "yes." "Do you know Medicare is a government
program?" A confused look. "Do you know the
Republicans want to end Medicare, make it into private insurance?" "You don't
know what you're talking about. You probably support Obama" and they started to
walk away. "No, we oppose ObamaCare,"
the women stopped and listened again, "we think everyone should have Medicare.
Don't you think it would be a good idea if every American could have the
Medicare you have and like?" "Hmm, yes" then, more confusion in their faces.
Then, talking to the Democrats showed equal partisan confusion. I explained: "We
oppose the Obama mandate because we want to end insurance control of health
care. We support single payer, Medicare for all?" Response: "So do I." I asked: "Single payer
ends insurance, and Obama's law entrenches insurance more deeply in control of
health care, aren't those opposites?" Response, obviously not understanding
what "opposite' means: "It's a step in the right direction." I ask: "How can it
be a step in the right direction when it is going in the opposite direction?"
No longer able to say it is the right direction, spouts another talking point: "This
is the best we can get, we can build on this." Me, trying to figure out the
Democrat thinks there is to build on, asks: "But, if we want to end insurance
domination, how do we build on a law that is based on insurance?" Unable to
explain it, the Democrat answers: "We can't get what we want." I say: "Of course, not, if people like you
and organizations like yours who support single payer, spend their time
advocating for the insurance industry, we can't get what we want. But, if
people who support single payer work for it we could." Answer "But, we have to re-elect President
Obama."
Partisan confusion
reigned.
And, sadly partisan
confusion dominates our airwaves as well.
Of course, the right wing radio continues to attack Obama and
confusingly calls a market-based, insurance-dominated health law socialism. But, sadly the "liberal" media sends out
equal partisan confusion. We were able
to go into Radio Row, where all the liberal radio outlets were interviewing "experts"
on health care. The talking points, like
in the conversation, were repeated and repeated. When one radio host wanted to interview me,
really debate me since he was a Democratic apologist, I sat down. An organizer in the room asked the host to
speak with her. She came back and told
me I had to leave. This was private property
and only people allowed to be here were allowed to be here. I explained I was invited by a station to be
interviewed. She explained -- "I tell
them who to interview. The stations have slots and we fill them." I asked -- "do you mean only people who
support Obama can be interviewed." She explained "The Republicans do it to."
So, partisan confusion
reigns and it permeates the airwaves leaving many people confused. We need to clear
the FOG (Forces Of Greed) and get the truth on the air.
Despite all this supermajorities of Americans
have consistently supported single payer, whether inaccurately called
socialism or correctly described as "Medicare for all" 60% or more support it. Why?
For the same reason that the great salesman President Obama and his
superb marketing team have been unable to sell forced purchase of health
insurance: Every family, business whether large or small; and every doctor or
other health care provider have suffered insurance abuse. Two thirds of those who go bankrupt from a
health problem have health insurance.
The American experience is that health insurance is expensive, provides
inadequate coverage and tries to avoid paying for health care. We all know this. So, no matter what the politicians say -- Americans
do not trust the health insurance industry.
But, one thing the two
parties in Washington agree on -- they will protect health insurance at all
costs. After-all, they are a great source
of campaign contributions -- as the two politicians responsible for forcing
Americans to buy insurance, President
Obama and Mitt Romney, well know.
Kevin Zeese is co-director of Its Our Economy and is an organizer with
the National Occupation of Washington, DC
which begins on March 30.
1
