The bigger question now seems to be: can the Senate pass their version of this reform legislation, and what compromises will need to be made to both versions to get this bill passed and sent to the President’s desk? Will there be any teeth left in the legislation to bring about any real reform? It all seems too close to call right now. Perhaps the moment for marketing these changes to the American public has now passed. If that is so, then now is surely time for the gloves to come off. The one thing we can be certain about is that huge sums will be spent trying to kill this “reform”- however great or small it may be.

One side of the aisle (the party of  “NO”) seems to be banking on reform being DOA and kicked to the curb by the end of this year, or at least by the first part of the next one. That way, they may reason, we can spend whatever is left of next year talking endlessly about how the Democrat-run government is ineffective, and how they cannot and will not accomplish anything for the American public. The party of “NO” will have already forgotten that during the previous administration, not only was prosperity for the middle class in this country flushed right down the proverbial crapper, but we watched in horror as unjustified wars were jumped into without any prospect of victory or semblance of forethought about an exit strategy was considered. We watched as the ultra-rich grew richer faster and super-corporations  flourished, without regard for what the future might hold if the bets they were making came due for our economy.  By the first part of next year, with new law or without, the party of “NO” will be talking from every corner of the globe about how things were so much better when they were in power. They’ll have pundits and talking heads on every corner of every TV news program, and articles in every major newspaper that confirm for us daily that the only way back to prosperity is more trickle-up economics, more freedom for the mega-corporations, a drastic reduction in rules that govern our financial sector, dramatically lessened trade restrictions, mega tax breaks for the ultra rich, and more wars in foreign lands (against whomever they choose to vilify) whenever they damn well please.

Will someone tell me: where are the damn Progressives in all of this? Have we given up so quickly, just because our new President didn’t jump up and down and body slam anyone who disagrees with our latest and greatest new agenda? Did anyone really believe that politics-as-usual in Washington D.C. would be such an easy thing to change, especially given that all the money and all the corporate press is in the other side’s corner? What I want to know is: why aren’t we organized or at least busy organizing? Why isn’t everyone who wants these changes screaming at the top of their lungs from every nook and cranny in every corner of our country? Everyone should know by now that politicians are all about getting re-elected, that it’s really up to us to force changes. Everyone should know by now that it’s up to us to make sure that our voices are heard about what is and what isn’t a respectable way to run a government and just who that construct- from its inception- was always meant to protect… .

When the Republicans wanted to get their version of  “health care reform” passed, they knew they would have to market the plan to the masses. I’m speaking, of course, of Medicare Part D.  Did they forget to mention to the public at large that this new prescription drug benefit would come with one of the highest prices possible, that it would allow drug companies to set their own prices, making it illegal for our government to negotiate for good prices on prescription drugs for our seniors? No. They simply said, “Wow, this will be great for your mom and dad when they turn 65.” As a result, our government pays much higher rates for exactly the same drugs than virtually all other countries pay. And the pharmaceutical companies got a great deal richer. Small wonder no one trusts the government to do anything right.

But the Republicans did have something right: they knew that they had to market their plan to the American people- even if they did accomplish this task in a deceptive way. I’m not now, nor would I ever suggest that deceptive practices should be used by anyone in government to bring about “reform”. Firstly, I do not believe that an average American is a sheep worthy of being led to the slaughter, unlike- it seems- some politicians.  And secondly, I strongly believe that the “will of the American People” is not something to be played with or manipulated for personal, political or financial gain- as some in government quite obviously believe. What I do believe is this: that in general, Americans do care about their fellow man; Americans do care about the welfare of the communities in which they live; and that most Americans realize that they have a significant financial interest in what outcome is the result of our current health care debate and ensuing legislation.

And since our Great Recession began, Americans have consistently been making their voices heard: We’ve been “tightening our belts,” spending less, cutting out unnecessary expenses, looking for ways to “stretch a dollar.” And something politically progressive people have not done effectively is demonstrate to the American public that Reform will absolutely equal some current or future cost savings that average Americans can take to the bank. As a result, we spend endless hours debating the care that’s missing from our “health care” system, and still all we hear from those opposed to reform is: “It’s not that I’m opposed to everyone having access to good health care… I just can’t figure out how we’re going to pay for it all, especially when we’re already so much in debt.”

I don’t believe the answer that will assuage those fears is to suggest simply that since we could spend a trillion dollars killing people in Iraq, we can spend another trillion dollars to help out our fellow Americans with much needed health insurance. So then, how can we satisfy this concern, and in so doing get many more Americans to fall strongly into the “for” category instead of the “against” category? This depends on what we’re marketing, naturally. The details of the plan are everything. If, from the beginning, we had been marketing health care for all as “Medicare Part E, a completely voluntary health insurance program available to Everyone” instead of some esoteric concept like “single-payer” health care, we might have made better progress. And now we’re left with- as a poorer substitute- a grossly more vague concept to market: a “public option,” with it’s stated intention being that it will provide competition to the big insurance companies for those who cannot currently afford or by exclusion do not have health insurance. I think of it as “Mini Medicare” in that it is administered by the government and as such has potential to force some cost savings and obvious benefit for a segment of the American population, but naturally I see the holes and limitations in such a system as well. With the public option, it’s likely that most Americans will not be able to qualify for the program, just those that are currently not covered or who have been excluded from coverage. True competition would require that anyone be allowed to use this new health insurance option- not for free, but for a marketplace-competitive premium that they can afford. Only then would such an option put downward pressure on insurance plan rates, and the majority of Americans begin to see a direct and positive impact on their own financial situations. Simple: if we have a choice between a government-run plan that offers the same benefits as our current one, but with twenty or even thirty percent savings on our premiums, then how many Americans would be interested in trying “government-run” health care? But persuading those of us who are not among the group currently excluded from health insurance coverage becomes more difficult as a marketing challenge, especially when many covered Americans believe that their costs for coverage will rise as a result of these new “reforms,” rather than decrease.

As it stands, we still may have something to market in terms of  “health care reform.” Our fellow Americans being covered by health care, rather than excluded, does have many and varied benefits to us as a whole:

1. Someone who is currently excluded, whether because of cost or pre-existing condition, will eventually cost (those who do pay for) the health care system money. Accidents and illness can happen to anyone, regardless of one’s ability to pay. We know that a large number of bankruptcies happen as a result of an inability to pay for medical expenses in this country.  And when someone uses the health care system without the ability to pay for those services, we all pay the bill. If we cover everyone with premiums based on their ability to pay, then this cost can be partially- or even mostly- mitigated. Any reduction in medical bankruptcies has a positive  and direct benefit for us all.

2. Excluding someone, as is common practice in our current system, whether by “pre-existing condition” or by “recision” may have an immediate and positive impact on a health insurance company’s bottom line (their profit margin), but it also has a great downside cost in our society. Some in our political system would have us leave the cast-offs to the wolves, but at what cost? When people are excluded from affordable health care,  they choose not to seek advice and preventative care when medical conditions and normal ailments can be solved easily and at low-cost to a provider. The net result is that many of us- sometimes even those with health insurance coverage- wait to see a physician until a relatively minor condition blossoms into something infinitely less treatable, something perhaps much more costly to treat. So there are direct cost savings if the system- by design- encourages everyone to seek preventative care in the best interests of their own good health.

3. One of the greatest problems to overcome in this health care debate is that of the insurance companies’ monopoly control over our health care system. A large portion of our country’s health care is administered by a relatively few enormous corporations with great wealth and power.  Rescinding their exemption to our nations anti-trust laws now seems the only prudent method that has the best potential to create competition.  The best way to accomplish this  in my opinion is to continually expose the waste, expose the corruption, and expose the greed inherent in a for-profit system. This is best implemented as a continuous and unrelenting commentary on the trickle-up economics at work in the current system, and it’s direct and deleterious impact on health care for all. Armed with enough information about worst-practice behavior of virtually all of the big health insurers, we should seek to break up these corporate behemoths so that the remaining companies are pitted against each other in a competitive  environment. Where many rural communities have only one or possibly two choices of insurers, they now would have numerous choices- all which were competing for their business. With the exemption from the anti-trust laws rescinded, no more would these companies be given license to collude and artificially raise premiums at far greater than inflationary increases.

4. Any downward pressure on health insurance costs that eventually translates into real cost savings for the majority of citizens in this country, equals more expendable income for the majority. Greater expendable income for the majority has the most potential by far to revive our ailing economy than any other single accomplishment. So much of our taxpayer dollars have been spent on wars on foreign soil, or on bailing out Wall Street and the banks (both of whom are directly culpable as pertaining to current economic woes), that some suggest that spending money on infrastructure or massive new health care initiatives would be absurd. Unfortunately, the financial sector encompasses less than a third of our economy by most accounts. Fully two thirds of our economy is consumer driven. And what has happened to our economy as the majority saw wages stagnate or decline, and expenses increase dramatically? The majority lost confidence in the system. The majority “tightened their belts.” The majority, basically, slowed or stopped spending for anything non-essential. Who wants to make major purchases of any kind when jobs are disappearing at alarming rates,  foreclosures and bankruptcies are rampant, unemployment is approaching Great Depression levels in some areas, and few began the downturn with anything like enough savings to inspire even weak confidence. Consumer spending cannot return to comfortable levels when expendable income has vanished in a puff of smoke. And in the middle of it all, which expense has been cutting into our expendable income with double-digit increases  even as  the rest of  our country battles deflation? You guessed it: our health insurance premiums are primary offenders. I’m not presupposing that these ridiculously-high premiums are the only cause of this recession, but they have added to the continuous and unrelenting stress on our economy, and are projected to continue increasing to unsustainable levels ever more quickly now, in the face of potential “reform.” Like a plague, the problem of evaporating expendable income is spreading across our country, and with more than two-thirds of our economy at stake we cannot hope for economic recovery without true and sweeping health insurance reform. It’s a simple equation, really: while demand for goods and services wanes, there can be no increasing wages, there can be no moderated inflation, there can be no true hope of a timely end to our economic woes. Demand for goods and services equals jobs. Reduction in unemployment levels leads to upward pressure on wages. Reduction in major expenses equals greater expendable income levels, which gives us the greatest impetus to drive the economy onward and upward.

The current strategy by BMI seems to be:

A> Threaten (& buy the support of) as many Senators as you possibly can.

B> Claim that the government ruins everything it touches.

C> Threaten that all health insurance companies will go out of business if  reforms are passed that give them any real competition.

D> Pay teams of lawyers to find the loopholes in all potential legislation before anything is even passed by Congress.

E> Pressure corporate media not to report anything of real substance as pertaining to the debate.

F> Spread false rumors that “death panels” will kill off all grandmothers if reform passes.

G> Work the government-money-for-abortions angle for all it’s worth.

H> Offer minuscule concessions publicly that sound like substantial sums to an average person, but that are really intended to distract the general public so that they don’t  realize that the amounts they are offering are less than 1/thousandth of their net profit in a single year, or notice the absurd amount of waste and obscene greed built into BMI’s current “health care” system.

I> Bus people who either hate our current President, or cannot tolerate any change (that they didn’t themselves initiate) to town-hall meetings throughout the country with instructions to disrupt, bully, and cause havoc.

and J> Ensure that no one anywhere is ever discussing the real issue: How do we best ensure that everyone in this country has access to health care, and that the care they receive is the best anywhere in the free world?