Single Payer Spearhead

by Stephen Fleischman

Grab the bull by the horns! Not the Merrill Lynch bull, that’s already been slaughtered—but the horns of the raging bull known as the Health Insurance Industry. That’s what Barack Obama must do in his first hundred days in the Oval Office.

With the economy in free-fall, instituting a single-payer health plan would go a long way in slowing that fall and would win back the support of his base, the liberal and progressive wing of the Democratic Party that won him the election. Single Payer should be the spearhead of his promised humongous stimulus package. And it would be easy. The infrastructure is there. All he has to do is tell Congress to extend Medicare to all citizens and he would sign the bill. It would be a bold move. In a single stroke, he would create a great legacy for himself. His only problem—he would have to bite the hand that fed him. He took millions from the Health Insurance Industry to finance his campaign. They gave him the money to insure that those two verboten words “single payer” would never be mumbled. And they weren’t—during the entire campaign.

Now, it is true that back in 2003, when Barack was an Illinois state senator, he spoke to an AFL-CIO group and told them, “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody.” Those were his exact words. It’s in the public record. When Obama threw his hat into the ring in 2008, and the long primary battle with Hillary Clinton for the nomination began, Obama’s sentiments seem to have morphed from single payer to “affordable” health care. That means working in alliance with the Health Insurance companies. None of the candidates have ever used the term “single payer”. They had all kept the specifics of their health plans very vague, fudging words like “universal” and “national” and for a very good reason. There was a raging bull out there listening to every word.

Hillary learned her lesson back in 1992 when she and Bill tried to finagle some kind of Rube Goldberg health insurance plan. It angered the bull and the Health Insurance Industry dropped a bomb on them in the form of a TV commercial with Harry and Louise sitting around the kitchen table talking health plans and calling Hillary and Bill’s plan “socialized medicine”. Heavens to Betsy! Horrors! Socialized Medicine! Hillary and Bill got off that tack real fast and became the Bonnie and Clyde of politics in other areas.

Are we going to go on talking the talk and getting ripped off by Big Insurance and Big Pharma forever? Why can’t we have what every other industrialized nation in the world enjoys—some form of national health insurance run by the government, yes…socialized medicine? The current health insurance system in America violates the very essence of the principle of insurance. Here’s how it’s supposed to work: you pay a small premium for a large benefit. The more people paying into the pool, the lower will be the premium. The larger the pool, the more efficient the system. So why not the whole country? In the current US system, there are literally tens of thousands of different, and overlapping health care organizations generating a blizzard of paperwork in an administrative wilderness creating enormous waste. There are thousands, if not millions of people pushing paper around. The overhead is estimated to be over 30%; whereas Medicare operates on an overhead of around 3 or 4%.

A look back at the endless squabble over health care in this country will reveal where this timidity about single payer comes from. “Socialized Medicine” were the scare words. They were used the way George W. Bush now uses “the war on terror”; to scare the American people into accepting two useless, endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was the American Medical Association (AMA), after World War II, that raised the bug-a-boo of “socialized medicine” when they saw something new blowing in the wind—pre-paid medical plans. Organized medicine saw these plans as a threat to their “fee for service” system. (You go to a doctor, you get a service, and you pay a fee) That’s the way they wanted to keep it, by God!

It was Henry Kaiser, the auto maker and ship builder, who came up with the idea of a Health Maintenance Organization for his employees—a prepaid medical plan (You pay a small monthly fee, you get your entire medical and hospital needs free of any other charges). The City of New York jumped right in with HIP (Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York), a pre-paid health plan for the city employees. “Socialized Medicine!” screamed the AMA. Physicians and surgeons manned the battle stations. Many saw their seven figure incomes taking flight. Other HMOs mushroomed around the country. And, then, in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson made “medical care for the aged” part of his “Great Society” package. We know it today as “Medicare”. Then, came Medicaid, medical care for the indigent. The flood gates were opened. For the first time, huge amounts of government money started pouring into the health care system.

The insurance companies knew a good thing when they saw it. Organized medicine, the AMA and its state and county medical societies, did not—paralyzed by their fear of government intrusion. Insurance companies relished the enormous cash flow of government money emanating from Medicare and Medicaid and other government programs like Champus, medical coverage for servicemen and their families. Insurance companies set up their own private plans, yes, HMOs, to sop up all that loose cash. They turned pre-paid plans into their opposite, not “socialized medicine” for the people, but corporate welfare for the insurance companies. Through the years, they increased premiums and cut services, raking in billions of dollars in profits instead of providing not-for-profit medical services to their subscribers. The doctors allowed themselves to be co-opted and blind-sided. They allowed the pre-paid plans to get away from them. The fear of “socialized medicine” dimmed their vision. So instead of “socialized medicine” the doctors got privatized sweatshops where some doctors cannot make medical decisions without the approval of an HMO bureaucrat. Managed care became mismanaged medicine.

Is this the system Barack Obama wants to continue with his “affordable” health care plan, begging the Health Insurance companies for the few crumbs falling from the table while they continue to rake in whopping billions in profits off our backs? Or will he be a man of principle, take the bull by the horns, come forward with his true beliefs as he expressed them in 2003, and give us the change we can believe in?

Beyond Decadence

by Stephen Fleischman

The story of Bernie Madoff is the perfect paradigm for morality in the era of monopoly capitalism.

As an investment broker with a “black box”, Madoff managed to swindle $50 billion, yes, billion—before being caught. Madoff targeted his own people in the Jewish community and even ripped off charitable organizations that were supporting humanitarian projects in Israel. He used the oldest of the old scams, the Ponzi or pyramid scheme—paying off old investors with exorbitant fictitious interest, money from new investors, while investing nothing.

According to Wikipedia, the Internet encyclopedia, the original schemer was Sarah Howe, who in 1880 opened up a “Ladies Deposit” in Boston promising eight percent interest, although she had no method of making profits. This unique scheme was billed as “for women only.” Howe was arrested on October 18, 1880 by New York City Police and sentenced to three years in prison. There have been a myriad of schemers through the decades since then, with stakes getting higher as capitalist greed developed. Wall Street, itself, is a kind of gambling casino where, apparently, pyramid schemers can operate.

What makes it possible?

Greed and negligence.

Greed on the part of the schemer and the public. Negligence on the part of the government and the regulators whose job it is to see to it that our financial markets operate on the up and up—primarily the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Greed is one of the seven deadly sins: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride. Greed is defined as an excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially wealth.

As the expression goes, “We all have a little larceny in our hearts”.

Does that describe Bernie Madoff, or does that describe his host of victims?

Well, both.

Capitalism brings out the worst in people. People are not monolithic, they are multifaceted.

The Roman Catholic Church recognizes “Seven Virtues” which correspond inversely to each of the seven deadly sins—Chastity for Lust, Temperance for Gluttony, Charity for Greed, Diligence for Sloth, Patience for Wrath, Kindness for Envy and Humility for Pride.

Why can’t we be more charitable, less greedy?

We can be if we change the material conditions of our lives—the economic system under which we live—the profit system.

Karl Marx made an astounding discovery that stands with Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and Sigmund Freud’s discovery of the Id, the Ego and the Super-ego.

Marx discovered that “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. His monumental analysis of capitalism, “Das Kapital”, the first of three volumes published in 1867, described the new mercantile world of capitalism growing out of feudalism, and how the system is based on the exploitation of one class by another (the proletariat or working class by the bourgeoisie or capitalist class) and that “profits” are derived from the surplus value created by labor in the process of production. Capitalism is based on the theft of labor power from the workers by the owners of the means of production.

The main drive of the capitalist is to maximize profits, always trying to squeeze more surplus value out of his workers by cutting wages, increasing hours of work for the same pay, denying benefits and other handy techniques.

The workers’ main weapon for fighting back is the strike. But that takes solidarity and unionization, of which there is little around, lately.

The only outstanding recent example is the successful sit-down strike by the workers at the Republic Windows and Doors plant in Chicago. In 1937, there were 733 such sit-in strikes, growing out of the example set by the General Motors workers in Flint, Michigan who closed down 3 GM plants.

The United Auto Workers (UAW) was formed, despite GM’s vow to prevent it.

The US developed a strong industrial labor movement with such leaders as John L. Louis, of the United Mine Workers and a leader in the formation of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) There were many others to follow. A strong union movement, winning higher wages and benefits and a better distribution of wealth, contributed to America’s development of a broad middle class.

That was then, this is now.

The onslaught on the labor movement in this country began with the Reagan Administration’s attack on the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) in 1981.

Twelve thousand air traffic controllers went out on strike for higher wages and better working conditions, setting off a chain of events that would redefine labor relations in America.

On August 3, 1981, President Reagan gave the PATCO strikers 48 hours to return to work. Two days later, when the strikers refused, Reagan carried out his threat. He fired 12,000 controllers and banned them from federal service for three years.

This was a tip-off to employers in the private sector. The government was on their side. The onslaught continued in the intervening years and capital effectively broke the back of the labor movement in this country.

Is there a lesson here, for today—as we head into another great depression?

The lesson may be that we’ll have to wait for the crash to come before the working class of America can get organized again.

Meanwhile, greed is the order of the day.

All Roads

by Stephen Fleischman

Who was it that said “All roads lead to Socialism”?

Was it that German guy with the full head of hair and the bushy beard? The guy, who, with his friend, Freddy Engels, spent a lot of time at the British Museum in London, in mid-Nineteenth Century, studying the results of this new thing called capitalism that mushroomed out of the Industrial Revolution in England?

Yes, it was. And it was the same two guys who wrote “The Communist Manifesto”, published in 1848, which said “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. The bushy-bearded German was a man, both praised and reviled, by the name of Karl Marx. He also wrote a book called “Das Kapital” (“Capital” as in Capitalism) that analyzed that system, as it was at that time, and predicted where it would go.

The main thesis of Marx’s book is that the capitalist system, in a new mercantile world growing out of feudalism, is based on the exploitation of one class by another and that the main drive of the capitalist is to maximize his “profits.”

There are many ways of explaining where profits come from and the capitalist has used them all—his entrepreneurship, his land, his factory, his machines, his technology. All subterfuges.

Every workingman knows that profit is derived from the sweat of his brow. It is the surplus value created by labor in the process of production. And that’s the only place it can come from. In effect, capitalism is based on the theft of labor power from the workers by the owners of the means of production. Wow! Why wasn’t something done about that?

Another of Marx’s predictions—capitalism leads to monopoly through mergers and acquisitions of capital enterprises. And monopoly capitalist states, vying for raw materials and markets, resort to imperialist wars. (we’ve certainly had a long string of those).

In the end, Marx says, the contradictions of capitalism will bring it down. It will “dig its own grave”.

There you have it. I think we’re in the grave digging stage right now.

The corporate infrastructure in the United States has become so powerful; the government hardly makes a move without its consent.

The corporate oligarchy that runs this country is made up of various segments of capital within the infrastructure as well as high ranking government officials, members of Congress, parts of academia, and other elements within the society. The mainstream media, mostly owned by five major corporate conglomerates, controls most of what we see, hear, and read.

Corruption within the infrastructure is pervasive. Need we mention Blagojevich and Madoff, for starters? Just about every elected politician is in one corporate pocket or another. The political system is fueled by campaign contributions. Politicians need money to get elected and the special interests that give it to them gets a quid pro quo. Everybody knows that’s the way the system works.

Alexander Cockburn of the Internet’s Counterpunch (12-14-08) reports “The Washington Post congratulates Obama for steering clear of the slime of Chicago politics, but what actually happened is that Obama moved to richer pastures… campaign contributions from the Pritzkers, the Crown family, the big ethanol interests in the Midwest, the nuclear industry, Wall Street financiers, the biggest of big time money, now gratefully acknowledged in the form of Obama’s cabinet appointments. Obama raised more money than any presidential candidate in the history of American politics, and here we are getting excited about Rod Blagojevich?”

Barack Obama, our president-elect, crawled out of the Milton Friedman den at the Chicago school of economics where economists still exhorted laissez-faire and deregulated capitalism going back to Adam Smith. “I’m a market man,” Obama chortled when he threw his hat into the ring.

After a year in recession, the country is well on its way to an apple sale. The cookie is beginning to crumble, the economy out of control—unemployment and foreclosures shooting up, purchasing power spiraling down. Pretty soon we’ll be looking like the “Great Depression” of the 1930s, only worse. Most of the MSM and their pundits are predicting it, even the media whores.

How do we fix it? Everybody’s got a plan we know won’t work.

The buzz word is “bail out”. They are using our taxpayer money, our national treasury, to bail out failing Wall Street firms to the tune of $700 billion. President-elect Barack Obama joined the hunt. President Bush, the decider, and his Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson, can’t decide on how to do it. Bush is talking now of diverting some of that money to bail out the auto industry—GM, Ford and Chrysler, the pillars of our manufacturing resources, on the eve of destruction. To save them from collapse, we must fork over $14 billion, just for starters.

To secure these loans, the failing companies will turn over shares of their stock to the government. We are becoming part owners of these companies! Members of the bourgeoisie! Is that socialism sneaking in the back door?

On January 20th, 2009, with right wing bigot and evangelical fundamentalist, Pastor Rick Warren reading the invocation—the first voice of the Obama Administration, Barack is going to find a big dump on his new desk in the Oval Office.

Obama has already let us know that he is preparing an humungous stimulus package to save the country. Everybody knows it won’t work.

As the economy spirals downward, as the pundits have predicted, we will see more corporations and industries in need of bailouts and take-overs by government.

That’s nationalization, isn’t it? Also called “socialism”.

That’s the easy way. The other way is revolution.

As the man with the beard said, “All roads lead to Socialism”.

The Plight of the Wishful Thinkers

by Stephen Fleischman

The Pentagon is preparing to deploy 20,000 federal troops within the United States, presumably to respond to a terrorist attack, but also preparing for the repression of domestic demonstrations, civil disobedience and riots which may result from the predicted economic collapse.

This flies in the face of the Posse Comitatus Act, in force for 130 years. The Act was passed in 1878 at the end of the Reconstruction period after the Civil War. It was designed to prevent federal troops from rampaging through southern states after Reconstruction and has persisted ever since to guarantee states rights. Posse Comitatus prohibits the federal military from acting in a law enforcement capacity. Domestic problems must be handled by local or state police. The Act specifically makes the use of the military by the federal government, within the borders of the United States, unlawful. But that doesn’t seem to mean much to the Bush Administration. They are opening the door for federal troops to engage in law enforcement. You can expect many more to come through.

Does this portend a police state for America?

Will Barack Obama become an outlaw, like his predecessor, if he allows the violation of Posse Comitatus to stand after he takes office?

Will Barack Obama become a war criminal, like his predecessor, if he allows the war in Iraq and Afghanistan to continue, under his Administration, by his selection of the Bushian secretary of “defense”, Robert Gates?

And what about Hawk Hillary as the new Obamaian Secretary of State? Iran, beware!

And the new National Security team led by hard-nose General Jim Jones?

And the new Economic team, Citigroup’s Robert Rubin, Treasury Secretary’s Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, the very ones who participated in bringing the Wall Street debacle down upon us?

Barack Obama is a very creative man. He has formulated an original concept—and he calls it the “team of rivals” offense. If you want to put through a bunch of liberal programs, surround yourself with a bunch of reactionaries. You are the boss-man so they will carry out your orders. This is a reverse logical I have never seen in politics before.

The Obama crowd has put out a set of talking points hyping this “rival team” concept and I have heard some of his gullible left-leaning liberal supporters mouthing them.

It’s ironic that the corporate oligarchy chose Barack Obama to lead America into corporatism.

Corporatism? Sounds ominous…

That’s how Benito Mussolini, the pre-World War II dictator of Italy, defined fascism. When the corporate oligarchy surrounds and controls the government, the resulting state of governance is called fascism. Mussolini should know. He coined the word.

Fascism? In the USA? Heaven forbid!

When just about every Congressman and Senator is in some corporate pocket, and our new President-elect has been custom made and whipped into place by ubiquitous propaganda including the subservient mainstream media—and when a little scrappy Middle East state wags the big floppy dog, you know that our historical democracy has taken a powder.

Our President-elect Obama, apostle of change, has gone back to the future, bringing the past with him into our future.

Many Americans, who voted for him, did not get what they thought they were getting.

And whose fault was that? Well, the benighted wishful thinkers, of course, the left-leaning liberals and progressives who failed to see what was before their eyes because of their wishful thinkedness.

When will the scales fall from their eyes? Perhaps never—if they haven’t yet.

How did this happen?

Well, Senator Barack Obama (D) of Illinois wanted to become president. The oligarchy was casting around for a candidate. After eight years of George W. Bushwhacking, the Democrats were a shoo-in. Their first choice, early on in the 2008 campaign, was Hillary Rodham Clinton, a sure shot. Then this charming, charismatic young man came along with all the qualifications. He was taken up by the oligarchy and his captivating liberal rhetoric enamored the left. His chances to talk Hillary down, during the primary fight, were good; which was exactly what happened.

McCain? No contest.

The selection of Joe Biden as running mate—and the choice of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff, told the whole story.

Joe Biden, establishment hack from Delaware, the state of easy corporate charters, Senator from MasterCard, compulsive plagiarist, even distinguished himself as a warmonger from the Balkan to the Afghan to the Iraq wars.

Rahm Emanuel, Democrat from Illinois’s 5th congressional district, scrappy street fighter, noted for his combative style and his political fundraising abilities, is also a personal friend of Obama.

The mainstream media has jumped on the bandwagon. The New York Times, in its lead editorial (12/2/08) says, “There is no underestimating the challenges facing Mr. Obama, and he will need a strong team to help him. The choices announced on Monday are a strong start.”

Can you believe that?

“Change we can believe in,” was Obama’s mantra during the campaign. Mr. Obama’s idea of change is no change at all.

It should have been obvious to everyone—but, apparently, not to the wishful thinkers. Their “rival team” talking points don’t seem to be doing the job.

What’s a left-leaning liberal to do?