Without a public option, the other parties that comprise America’s non-system of health care — private insurers, doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and medical suppliers — have little or no incentive to supply high-quality care at a lower cost than they do now.
Which is precisely why the public option has become such a lightening rod. The American Medical Association is dead-set against it, Big Pharma rejects it out of hand, and the biggest insurance companies won’t consider it. No other issue in the current health-care debate is as fiercely opposed by the medical establishment and their lobbies now swarming over Capitol Hill. Of course, they don’t want it. A public option would squeeze their profits and force them to undertake major reforms. That’s the whole point.
Why the Critics of a Public Option for Health Care Are Wrong, Robert Reich, Tuesday, June 23, 2009
In the early 1980s, in Austin, Texas, there was a punk band called the Dicks. The Dicks had this super song whose title, if I remember correctly, was “We Hate the Rich, They Bore Us.” (Was it really the Dicks? I’d love to hear if I am wrong.) Anyway, when it comes to health care, I think that truism has now been superseded: “We Hate the Rich, They’re Cowards.”
That’s not to say that the rich are any less boring. But I say that because if the rich and/or powerful had a coherent sense of self-interest (or just a time-frame longer than the next year) they would support not just a public option but a single payer plan. With certain exceptions, though, they seem locked into some sort of dysfunctional reasoning that they just can’t seem to escape.
If we had national health care, much of the automobile debacle could have been avoided. Nationals as well as multinationals could compete more effectively with other developed nations. Small businesses could make market ideology seem almost reasonable. The list of good reasons is endless. We’d all benefit, but as with everything, the rich would benefit most. Yet we are told to compromise.
It’s as if an entire class of people rejected anti-viral drugs in the middle of a flu epidemic that was killing thousands. If Wal-Mart and ATT and the like now accept the public option principle as necessary to reform, Obama should consider that the center-right position and negotiate accordingly. If we have to accept compromise, don’t toss the baby out with the bathwater.
The Chicago Tribune has reported that trustees and administrators at the University of Illinois are at the center of a scandal regarding the admission of politically-connected students who were less qualified than the general pool of applicants. After the newspaper ran an investigative piece several weeks ago that sparked outrage, Governor Pat Quinn created an independent Admissions Review Commission to investigate allegations of preferential treatment.
Examination is surely in order. As ACTA has long argued, trustees must be more than just fundraisers, boosters, or rubber stamps. Board service is an honor, and it is also a responsibility. As ACTA noted in its guidebook for governors, it is vital that governors “appoint thoughtful, active trustees” who have “a clear sense of their responsibilities to the public.” Trustees do not serve for the benefit of friends or special constituencies; they are stewards of the public interest — appointed to safeguard the academic and financial integrity of the university — for the benefit of the entire community.
ACTA’s Must Reads, Posted by Heather Lakemacher on July 02, 2009
I probably shouldn’t pick on the ACTA so much, but since I did wonder out loud recently how they would respond to the ongoing ‘class scandal’ here in Illinois I thought a comment was justified. Their acknowledgment of the problem is remarkably non-committal and perhaps inevitably bland. This neutrality is curious, given the ACTA’s promotion of high moral and political standards.
I’d think that they would decry this sort of corruption as another example of how the American system of meritocracy and a-political education has been undermined by special interests. They certainly never pull any punches when it comes to what they see as the abuses of diversity and the “special interests” of the professors. Affirmative action, is not so bad, I guess, if it’s for the powerful.
I think this timidity, too, represents what might be called the Obama-effect, a not-so-buried fear rippling through the culture of the powerful, an anxiety that “business as usual” might be a little more disrupted than they hoped. The trustee system is certainly a prime candidate for populist change, especially if it becomes more visible. How can they make this look good?
Is the ACTA, and other like minded folks, wondering if these hearings risk pulling on a thread that might unravel the assumptions that allowed business people (aka Capital) to take over the governance of public universities? It wasn’t always that way, of course, and it”s easy to imagine a more progressive trustees model rooted in community service and academic-self governance.