The dreams endure

[pecunium]

Or, to reach back to Joe Hill, "Don't mourn, organise."

Ted Kennedy is dead. Nothing we can do about that (and his legacy will long outlast what I have to say about him). He was flawed. Who isn't? He did his best, and his best was pretty good.

He was in favor of fixing our healthcare problems. His committee passed out a bill which is a lot better than the present mess in the Finance committeee (of which one of the members, Mike Enzi, admits he's acting in bad faith, ""It's not where I get them to compromise, it's what I get them to leave out," Enzi said.").

It's just possible that, with the other things going on (the 65 members of the House who vow to vote against any bill without a public option, Steny Hoyer deciding that the Senate trying to dictate to the House, Reid getting pressure from inside the Senate, Grassley saying he won't support a bill without fellow republicans signing on, Bingamen saying he could support making a filibuster impossible) a decent bill could be presented to the House.

So far, it seems the best proposals are in the Kennedy bill (because no one in the "debate" has the courage to argue for a complete overhaul, a move to single payer, and an emphasis on healthcare, not health insurance). Support for that bill equals pressure for a better bill out of any of the other committees, and gives political cover to the members of the House who are on the fence.

You can provide such support at the Petition to Honor Senator Kennedy

Comments

[kestrels-nest.livejournal.com]

Thank you for posting this. I didn't know about it, though it doesn't surprise me at all. May it work.

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I'm becoming downright pessimistic about anything good in the way of health-care legislation passing.

It's kinda like the first time a moderately high-level government spokesman raised the possibility of using torture -- the simple act of even talking about it, in public, showed that we had passed a serious turning point in our national/political morality.

Now, there's high-level support -- even from President Obama -- for the provision that every American (presumably not otherwise covered) be required by law to purchase health-insurance coverage, a considerable portion of the cost of which will go into the pockets of private businesses and investors. The right-leaning Supreme Court might or might not find this unconstitutional, but I consider it outrageous.

I'm willing -- anxious, even -- to see some of my tax money go to provide better health care for people who can't afford it (yes, even if that means my taxes are increased). But I will protest, and agitate, as strongly as I can, against doing this in a way that will divert part of that money to people who actually make no contribution to anyone's health. A Single-Payer (government medical insurance, like Medicare) system is obviously the most efficient & effective way of spending our money. Failing this, a _good_ Public Option plan -- one that would enable anyone who applies to be well-covered -- would be (marginally) acceptable. So far, nothing like that seems to have been introduced.

But come, now -- can anyone really think that a plan based on private, for-profit, insurance companies is going to produce coverage that poor people (or the taxpayers) can afford and that will enable them to get significantly better medical care than the practically-zero that they can get now? Remember, our country has literally millions of people who are subject -- mostly through no fault of their own -- to the fact that it takes two people, working full time at minimum-wage jobs, to keep up close to the poverty-level (to say nothing of rising above it). Basic food, shelter, clothing, utilities, and taxes must consume about 90% of their income. Even if they are given (out of tax moneys) some kind of (comparatively inexpensive -- and you can bet that will be insisted upon) private health-insurance policies, they simply won't have the money to pay for the certain co-payments and annual deductible, any more than they can now afford to go to a doctor when they're sick.

Personally, I think Americans are much too stuck on the idea of Spectacular, All-Encompassing & Grandiose Solutions, and that we'd do better to break the problem up into small segments and deal with them thoroughly, one at a time, but I guess modern politics doesn't work that way. *sigh*