Mar 23 2010

On the Healthcare Betrayal Bill – don’t take the healthcare “reform” bill lying down

(noon. – promoted by ek hornbeck)

People who I don’t consider Democratic lemmings, like Noam Chomsky and Robert Reich, have said that the healthcare “reform” bill is worth voting for, even if one has to hold one’s nose. However, Chomsky recently wrote

“There should be headlines explaining why, for decades, what’s been called politically impossible is what most of the public has wanted,” Chomsky said. “There should be headlines explaining what that means about the political system and the media.”

Problem is, Chomsky, as well as anybody, knows that there will be no such headlines, unless activists force such headlines. Which won’t happen from veal pen groups, such as MoveOn. But this diary isn’t for groups such as Moveon. As Jesus might have said, “They have their reward.”

To force such headlines, I suggest that serious healthcare advocates take to talking about the healthcare “reform” bill as the Healthcare Betrayal Bill. As it’s main point of propagandistic attack, it can pointedly educate Americans as to Obama’s backstabbing deal with Tauzin, but then go on to point out that neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party made a big deal about this. The Democrats, of course, don’t want to embarass their darling, Barack Obama. But the Republicans? They of the “death panels” and “pulling the plug on Grandma”?

Obviously, they have no problem trying to embarass Obama. Ah, but to embarass some of their major corporate donors is another matter. So, the story of the crummy healthcare bill is actually story of selling out to corporations, and how both the Democratic and Republic parties are whores for the corporations.

That is the line of attack that people who want not just comprehensive healthcare reform in the US that won’t bankrupt us, but also reform of the mainstream political parties (or their abandonment), should take. The Healthcare Betrayal Bill as poster child for government corruption by corporations. It doesn’t get much plainer than this, folks.

11 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. The parameters of what would be possible in the Bill were defined by the particular corporations involved. Sounds a lot like Mussolini-style fascism.

    • Xanthe on March 24, 2010 at 18:07
    • #

    just because the Republicans are against it – it must be a good thing.  People need to read extensively about these major legislative events.  And read all viewpoints  – but don’t spend too much time on the right, please.  

    That has been one or the problems with the HCR – it muddied the waters.  

    Or maybe this is what was planned by all of them in DC – that’s how crazy I’m getting.  

  3. I pressed her on whether she still supported primarying any Democrat who voted for the Nelson/Stupak healthcare bill, and tried to get specific about primarying Nancy Pelosi.  She responded in part:

    I think every single politician should be primaried in every single election, especially in heavily gerrymandered districts with strong one-party leaning. I’ve said so about a million times and started an organization based on that principle.

    Think about that diary on all your failures. People could learn a lot from it. I imagine that using google first before you demand people declare things that they’ve said over and over again for years might cut down on them.

    Her organization of choice is Accountability, another ActBlue-type Target the Worst operation.

    I responded:

    Jane, allow me to clarify. You may say you have an organization to have a primary in every race. That is laudable. You say it is difficult to recruit candidates, and indeed that is so.

    My difficulty is that I am small and obscure, and apparently have wracked up an impressive list of failures since December 2009. You might make a specific reference to the diary in question, as I don’t know what you are talking about.

    How about your failures? Such as failing to stop the healthcare bill from containing abortion-restricting language?

    In any event, I believe your difficulty in recruiting is very different than mine. Mine is at least in part that a candidate should stand for a certain set of principles to be a Full Court Press candidate. Not particularly running to win. And that 2012 is a long ways off.

    Your difficulty is that you are recruiting to win. You want candidates who are marginally better than the incumbents and have good reputation and can attract money, and can win. Such candidates would almost by definition be part of – or become part of – the regular Democratic Party machinery. You might call your slate “Future Blue Dogs of America.”

    As for Pelosi, it’s nice that you would support there being a primary candidate against her. Allow me to sharpen my question to account for your dodge. Do you think that Nancy Pelosi should be defeated by this hypothetical challenger? Would you actively support a challenger from her left? Yes or no.

    She has clearly rejoined the club.

Comments have been disabled.