Delaying the Health Bill
There's something else that's peculiar about the health reform legislation that we may or may not ever have. As currently drafted the reforms don't kick in until 2013 — roughly four years from now. I note this because in a brief email exchange with Doyle McManus he pointed out to me that the Democrats "get four years to tell people that progress is coming without incurring pain or costs" and that therefore their incentives are to pass virtually any bill. I don't agree. For one thing, the situation between today and four years from now certainly will change and without any intervening action to fix health care the problems will be much worse. Are the Democrats, and Mr. Obama, after having dramatically raised the stakes, willing to be portrayed as indifferent to a mounting crisis? As in a kind of slow motion, long-term health/Katrina? I just don't see it, so my assumption is that the Democrats, in drafting whatever final bill they agree, will set things up for immediate implementation. But I may well be wrong.
Posted by George Kenney on September 11, 2009 6:40 AM 
« In Search of Doughnuts | Main | American Bliss »
Comments
Well George, since immediate implementation of real reform within 12-24 months would virtually assure Democratic control of the government for the next 40+ years, we can be pretty sure they won't do it. After many months of non-stop propaganda and media "analysis" bringing attention to the subject, the Democrats will hardly be able to resist the temptation to demonstrate their uselessness once more.
IMHO, failure to deliver real reform (meaning a widely available and very affordable public option at the very least) will guarantee the defeat of Dems in the mid-terms next year. If there are mandates and fines to boot, there will be hell to pay.
Posted by: Charles D
|
September 11, 2009 9:00 AM
I think at this point, Mr. Kenney, we can be sure of only one thing: there is no longer any connection whatsoever between what or whom one votes for and what one gets.
Lots of people on the "left" — including the man you'll be having on in a couple weeks, the great Paul Street — claim that Obama's emergence as another front man for the vampire class was predictable and inevitable. I don't think so. He ran as a transformative candidate who seemed to realize that, if elected, he had only one job: break the back of the financial oligarchy. Considering that was the "soul" of his campaign and his election, considering the revulsion 80% of the country felt toward Bush/Cheneyism, and considering the opportunities provided by the bankster/Wall Street crash, his complete failure to use what is now obviously the greatest financial crime in world history to investigate the crime, prosecute all involved, and send them to jail exposes Barack Obama as a historical figure drawfing his true historical parallel, Vidkun Quisling.
An "obama" – n., a person who betrays his or her own country by aiding an invading enemy or occupying army; fifth columnist.
Posted by: EJK | September 11, 2009 3:54 PM