DON'T GET SICK 'TIL AFTER THE ELECTIONS... OR MAYBE NOT THEN EITHER

From GOP has had a lock on the functioning of the federal government since 2000. That's about 7 years. The lock isn't quite as tight now. Democrats won slim majorities in both Houses of Congress but, because of Bush ally Joe Lieberman in the Senate and because of a handful of reactionary Democrats in both Houses-- corporate whores like Ben and Bill Nelson, Max Baucus, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln in the Senate and at a couple dozen in the House-- it is next to impossible to enact any legislation immune from Republican obstructionism. That said, one might ask how voters, who say their #1 concern-- above and beyond "terrorism" and above and beyond Iraq-- is health care, will judge Republican action and inaction on this issue leading up to the general election of 2008.

Republicans running for their party's presidential nomination are on a "me too" squad in response to loud Democratic calls for a complete overhaul of the health care system. Remember, Michael Moore, unfortunately, doesn't write health care legislation for either party. Neither does Howard Dean. Both of them understand the need for a not-for-profit universal, single-payer health care system that covers the 44.8 million people who are currently not insured and provides adequate coverage and care for the rest of us who are stuck with crappy for--profit health insurance designed to cheat and screw policy holders at every step.

Whenever I see a movie like SiCKO I always think that if only everybody could see this film... not a single Republican elected official would be left standing. Then I wake up. Democrats and Republicans have significantly different approaches to health care and they are at the heart of each party's value system. They reflect the "long-standing divisions between the parties on the role of government versus the private market in addressing the affordability and availability of health insurance."

Republicans have so thoroughly controlled the debate that Democratic politicians are afraid to speak out for what the majority of Americans demand. I'll never forget North Carolina Congressman Brad Miller telling me that "People are amazed at how hateful the whole system is to deal with." The Republican approach to the health care debate is to scream hysterically and menacingly about communist health care where The Government's evil bureaucrats determine what gets treated, how it gets treated and who treats it. This is the sum total of the debate because the Democrats are too lame to call them on it. Moore did, and very well, in his film. And every American who is part of the non-congressional health insurance system knows the reality of what we have today: Corporate, for-profit (Über Alles) evil bureaucrats determine what gets treated, how it gets treated and who treats it. And the accountability: zilch.

Republicans, whose primaries usually turn on other issues, often wait until the general election to roll out detailed health plans; this time they are plunging into the debate far earlier. Democrats are competing furiously among themselves over who has the bigger, better plan to control costs and to approach universal coverage-- a striking change from the party’s wariness on the issue a decade ago after the collapse of the Clintons’ health care initiative.

...In fact, when Senator Barack Obama of Illinois unveiled a plan aimed at covering tens of millions of uninsured Americans — but not requiring coverage for all-- some Democrats in rival campaigns complained that he had not gone far enough. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, once vilified for overreaching on health care, is now more often faulted in her party for moving too slowly. Her 1994 plan, attacked at the time from the left, right and center, is presented in the new Michael Moore documentary, “Sicko,” as a tragic missed opportunity.

Moore also points out that her approach has changed considerably now and has possibly been influenced by the gigantic amounts of campaign contributions she has taken from normally Republican-leaning health-care-for-profit corporations. Has Hillary been bought off? Scared off? A little of both? My best guess is yes, all of the above.

In the end it really does come down to the old argument about whether the collective we, our government, can be trusted to do anything. And no matter how many times it is proven that when Republicans don't get in the way-- in the manner the Bush Regime has dismally failed at every single thing it tried since coming to power-- government is an effective force for social good, the volume of the for-profit crowd is so loud, hysterical, and overwhelming that masses of voters are convinced to consistently vote against their own interests. Will voters still be suckered into buying Bush's empty platitudes about the "ownership society" which has been proven so ineffective to deliver anything other than massive profits for health care corporate management? Probably. It is certainly what Rudy McRomney is pushing and it's hard to imagine lobbyist Thompson will be any more innovative or daring.

OK, we all know better than to expect anything positive from that crew. What about the Democrats? "This year, the major Democratic proposals-- including Mr. Obama’s, one from former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina and a plan expected from Mrs. Clinton-- are arguably ambitious and costly, but do not attempt the wholesale reinvention of the system, or move explicitly toward the government takeover Republicans so often predict... The major Democratic plans announced so far attempt to cover nearly everyone by shoring up the employer-based system, creating new public insurance options and establishing new health insurance purchasing pools that offer a variety of private and public plans to people who cannot get coverage through work. People who could not afford coverage would get subsidies. Given those supports, some Democrats (including Mr. Edwards and-- it is widely expected but not yet announced-- Mrs. Clinton) back the idea of requiring every individual to obtain insurance."

If Hillary, Obama and Edwards can't catch up with Michael Moore on health care-- and figure out how to communicate it to the voters-- they don't deserve to be president any more than Rudy McRomney does. Moore got it right. I hope the candidates are seeing it-- and paying attention.




UPDATE: WHAT EACH CANDIDATE SAYS HE OR SHE WILL DO AND HOW THEY'LL PAY FOR IT

The Times has a chart with a brief outline of everyone's positions. I dare someone to read it and tell me that the Republicans aren't a bunch of whackadoodles. Do any of these men even deserve to be elected to a PTA committee on improving the school talent show?