Share
Email This Page
add comment

Health Care Vote: What It Really Means

Print
22 March 2010
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)

Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)


The Final Health Care Vote and What it Really Means

t's not nearly as momentous as the passage of Medicare in 1965 and won't fundamentally alter how Americans think about social safety nets. But the likely passage of Obama's health care reform bill is the biggest thing Congress has done in decades, and has enormous political significance for the future.

Medicare directly changed the life of every senior in America, giving them health security and dramatically reducing their rates of poverty. By contrast, most Americans won't be affected by Obama's health care legislation. Most of us will continue to receive health insurance through our employers. (Only a comparatively small minority will be required to buy insurance who don't want it, or be subsidized in order to afford it. Only a relatively few companies will be required to provide it who don't now.)

Medicare built on Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal notion of government as insurer, with citizens making payments to government, and government paying out benefits. That was the central idea of Social Security, and Medicare piggybacked on Social Security.

Obama's legislation comes from an alternative idea, begun under the Eisenhower administration and developed under Nixon, of a market for health care based on private insurers and employers. Eisenhower locked in the tax break for employee health benefits; Nixon pushed prepaid, competing health plans, and urged a requirement that employers cover their employees. Obama applies Nixon's idea and takes it a step further by requiring all Americans to carry health insurance, and giving subsidies to those who need it.

So don't believe anyone who says Obama's health care legislation marks a swing of the pendulum back toward the Great Society and the New Deal. Obama's health bill is a very conservative piece of legislation, building on a Republican rather than a New Deal foundation. The New Deal foundation would have offered Medicare to all Americans or, at the very least, featured a public insurance option.

The significance of Obama's health legislation is more political than substantive. For the first time since Ronald Reagan told America government is the problem, Obama's health bill reasserts that government can provide a major solution. In political terms, that's a very big deal.

Most Americans continue to be suspicious of government. That distrust is deeply etched in our culture and traditions. Our system of government was devised by people who distrusted government and intentionally created checks and balances, three separate branches, and almost insuperable odds against getting big things done. The period extending from 1933 to 1965 - the New Deal and the Great Society - was an historical aberration from that long tradition, animated by the unique crises of the Great Depression and World War II, and the social cohesion that flowed from them for another generation. Ronald Reagan merely picked up where Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover left off.

But Reagan's view of government as the problem is increasingly at odds with a nation whose system of health care relies on large for-profit entities designed to make money rather than improve health; whose economy is dependent on global capital and on global corporations and financial institutions with no particular loyalty to America; and much of whose fuel comes from unstable and dangerous areas of the world. Under these conditions, government is the only entity that can look out for our interests.

We will not return to the New Deal or the Great Society, but nor will we continue to wallow in the increasingly obsolete Reagan view that we don't need a strong and competent government. Today's vote confirms our hope that we can have both strength and competence in Washington. It is an audacious hope, but we have no choice.



Open Article On Originating Site



Robert Reich is Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written twelve books, including "The Work of Nations," "Locked in the Cabinet," and his most recent book, "Supercapitalism." His "Marketplace" commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes.


 

Comments  

 
-6 # burro 2010-03-22 10:50
I wish I could agree -- I would rather have nothing than this bill.

For what it really means, see here:
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/fact-sheet-the-truth-about-the-health-care-bill/
... See More
BTW: Reading the bill won't tell the whole story. For example -- the waiver prohibiting criminal prosecutions and punishments for failure to pay up will not stand -- there is a reason the IRS needs jail-time as a remedy -- as soon as this bill hits the pavement, that waiver will get cut.

Also, this bill will harm single-payer efforts around the country. That's not in the bill, but it's true. This bill will be used as a "wait and see" argument to stave off single-payer efforts, and then it will be used to prove that government health insurance does not work (even though that is not what this is exactly -- it is a government mandated use of a broken for-profit system).
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-7 # burro2 2010-03-22 10:51
It's not that it didn't go far enough. It went in the wrong direction -- it is not that it does to little good -- it is that it does too much harm -- we lost much more than we gained.

Obama and the corporate-military-intelligence-industrial complex win again -- another massive give-away -- first to the bankers (#1 DC lobbyists), then to the military, now to the insurance industry (#2 DC lobbyists). Is it any wonder from the president who set the record for corporate campaign donations? No.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+7 # Scott Hess 2010-03-22 11:17
Thanks Robert,
It's important to celebrate even modest gains to keep positive momentum. its an epic journey!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-8 # Richard Moore 2010-03-22 12:49
I am totally disappointed by this article. 'Strong and competent government' - give me a break. Government of Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street. But I'm not really familiar with Robert Reich, and perhaps this is what I should expect from him

rkm
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+3 # George Mitrovich 2010-03-23 11:07
Mr. Moore says he is "not really familiar" with Robert Reich, but criticizes him nonetheless.

Seriously?

I suggest that Mr. Moore go to Google and type in Robert Reich's name, there's a lot to learn about the former Secretary of Labor.

And when Mr. Moore has completed his "research", then perhaps what he has to say about Mr. Reich will matter. Until then, it doesn't.

George Mitrovich
San Diego
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # DurangoKid 2010-03-22 14:27
Doesn't the requirement to purchase health insurance amount to a bill of attainder?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-2 # The Naughties r Over 2010-03-23 10:30
Yes, blatantly unconstitutiona l. And they should be sued by every state AG in America who knows the difference between the Constitution and t.p.
WE- not like every place in the world- are a government of laws, not the fickle expediencies of day-to-day politics.
Some of our FOREFATHERS left England expressly to get away from this sort of unconstitutiona l oppression.
Corporate Welfare first for the Global Banking syndicate, and now for the globo Big Pharma. I hope Mr. 'Obama' (Davis) enjoys his day in the sun, because he's political toast from the moment people figure this scam out. "Reform"= John G. Public being ordered to pay directly to Big Pharma cartel at gunpoint. Sounds like something out of 18th century Britain. SHAME [does it still exist?] on anyone who drank the corporate media kool-aid on this one.

All our beloved politcal class had to do was extend Medicare/Medicaid coverage; but I guess that wasn't enough profit margin for their paymasters in the Corpocracy.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+3 # Ed & Susan Ingraham 2010-03-22 18:19
Thanks for the history lesson. If only the Republicans could hear you,they might get on board and vote for health care! My guess is that only Democrats read you...keep up the good work--keep on keeping on! Ed & Susan, garrulous octogenarians
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Mike 2010-03-22 23:48
Robert Reich is Michael Moore with a brain.
So the bill's (another) Big Pharma handout, from John G. Citizen, to our Corpocracy masters... but 'we have no other choice', since they've already made so much poverty and inequality in American society.
Truimphs of hope over rationality often end in tragedy.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+3 # edward abbey 2010-03-23 09:50
Enjoyed your article, Robert.

It is my hope that this signal health care reform victory will encourage Pres Obama and the Democrats in other legislation.

I particularly would like to see the President and his congressional majority use their new found confidence to reinstate regulation in the finance sector of the economy (banks, mortgage companies, etc etc)

It is high time that the Democrats started acting like the majority party. And pursuing their reform programs.

Why do we need all these reforms? Ask the corpocracy and its confederates during the first decade of this new millenium.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Cynthia 2010-03-24 00:28
edward had a nice sane comment on a nice, sane article.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Lois 2010-03-25 11:54
I find it interesting how so many people who haven't even read the bill know so much about it. Have you read what Ronald Reagan said about Medicare and how it was going to destroy us and now people would kill if they lost their Medicare. Maybe you should take some time to read what the bill is really all about before you write these long recitations about what it isn't. Take some time to be knowledgeable before you start spreading lies about something you know very little about. And yes, do some homework and find out about a person before you decide to criticize that person. That's the problem with many of our uninformed citizens, they are uninformed and want to spread uninformed information to the world. Thank you Robert Reich for your well informed article.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote