By Donald B. Ardell – September 06, 2009
INTRODUCTION
I should note at the start that I have been an enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama since early in his candidacy for president. My appreciation for the man only grew stronger as the election drew near. Like so many, I was transfixed on election night. My hope grew to audacious levels right up to the Inauguration, despite Obama's awful choice of a mumbo-jumbo talking, gay-bashing spiritual witch doctor to interject a prayer into what is a secular event of our non-Christian Republic. I was also taken aback by the president's lamentable decision to continue Bush's unconstitutional faith-based misuse of taxpayer dollars. But, I got over these shocks - nobody's perfect, I've heard. I remained a fan. I found in Obama's style, vision and words an eloquence and level of inspiration I had not experienced since college years listening to JFK.
Alas, I have recently been losing faith in Obama. I had faith in the sense that I hoped he was better than the presidents since Kennedy. Of course, that's faint praise in some cases (the Bushes and Reagan, Ford and Nixon) and not exactly high encomium in others (Clinton, Carter and Johnson). I had the audacity to believe Obama was what many admirers termed a transformative leader. I saw what I desired to believe in - a leader committed to and capable of lifting our society beyond the highest-bidder corruption of campaign donations for favors practiced by big business and all special interests.
TWO KINDS OF FAITH
Was this naïve? Misplaced hope? Perhaps, but it was NOT the innocent, helpless-to-resist faith to which I (like hundreds of millions of others) was exposed and indoctrinated during my formative years. That faith, religious in nature, was not lost reluctantly, and it did not pass little-by-little and bit-by-bit. No, that version of faith was shucked at once, washed away, discarded and (figuratively) boiled in acid one afternoon in my eleventh year when I developed, at the pre-puberty stage, an ounce or two of common sense. Even as a youth, the toxic nature of superstition, magical thinking and dogma, reinforced via elaborate pomp and circumstance by ecclesiastical shamans, began to appear self-evidently ludicrous. Of course, the programming I endured before this stage also made it clear that such questioning was a sin! Happily, I got over that worry soon enough and never looked back, except with contempt for the whole business of programming innocent but trusting children. If there is such a thing as sin, it might be brainwashing toddlers with a faith before they are capable of reasoning and making their own choices.
There could be another interpretation, a different explanation for why I "lost" my own assigned faith. Maybe I was born deprived of the religion gene. If so, it means I was left with no option but to rely on free inquiry for guidance and direction.
My hopes for Obama were never characterized by this kind of accepting, trusting faith devoid of evidence. (Twain once said, "faith is believing what you know ain't so.") Instead, my beliefs, faith or hopes in Obama were based upon indications of excellence. In Obama I saw an enthusiasm for and a commitment to values I favored. These included but were not restricted to respect for the commons, the public interest, secular government, science as the preferred path to human betterment and improved social conditions, particularly for those with less. The latter surely, I concluded, entailed systematic reforms in our $2.4 billion medical complex. The controllers of this dreadful non-system had proven themselves incapable of and very much indisposed to providing access to quality medical care for all. I saw Obama as a change agent who would lead the way to reform of this far too private profit system. I had faith he would promote a culture of personal responsibility that advanced quality of life for all Americans.
CAUSE FOR ALARM
Alas, as the health system debate goes on, my faith in Obama is sinking fast.
Is it true, as Patrice Greanville suggests, that President Obama is "a purveyor of grand illusions?" What is it about the president's approach to health system reform that has sparked dismay and disappointment among large numbers of his most ardent supporters, while still attracting the usual vitriol from the unhinged Republican Party of No?
I believe it's the widening gap between the promise and reality of Obama's presidency. My disappointment with Obama can be summarized in three parts:
1. A failure to protect or even respect sufficiently church/state separation;
2. Economic policies that overly support Wall Street, banking and big business interests; and
3. The direction of health system reform efforts.
Only the latter is addressed in this commentary about my loss of confidence in Obama as a transformative politician. I wonder if it's time, as Greanville suggests, to cast aside "the malignant delusions surrounding Obama and the Democratic party as saviors of the day - the sooner the better?" (See Cyrano's Journal Daily Dispatch, "Malignant Illusions," Vol 1, No. 19 /// 8.14.09.) I think it is.
THE PROBLEMS WITH HEALTH REFORM
Basically, Obama's proposed reforms change too little and cost too much. As of August 17, the Wall Street Journal quotes both Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the president's press secretary Robert Gibbs to the effect that the new goal of the Administration is simply "choice and competition in the insurance market." (Elizabeth Williamson and August Cole, "Chances Dim For A Public Plan," WSJ, August 17, 2009, p. 1.)
Well goodness me, big deal. The real problems with the current system are profiteering by pharmaceutical and insurance industries. Sounds as if these ingrained dysfunctions are to be ignored. Worse, Obama Administration secret deals with these industries practically guarantee that the problems reform should address will not be challenged. Evidence for this concern comes from reports of a series of White House meetings between the president and leaders of the insurance and drug companies. Excluded from these or any other White House meetings have been the progressive reform leaders seeking system overhaul. Notable among the missing are doctors Quentin Young and Sidney Wolfe, Rose Ann DeMoro, head of the California Nurses Association and Ralph Nader.
As a consequence of collusion and the decision to accept an illusion of reform instead of insisting upon pursuing genuine restructuring that would eliminate the power of entrenched industries, the president is choosing to ignore dismaying realities, including the following:
* $250 billion in documented industry billing fraud and abuse (identified by the GAO in 2008).
* $350 billion in overhead waste from Aetna, United Healthcare and other health insurance companies, as well as bloated bureaucracies with executive salaries that give new meaning to the term pornography.
* The fact that the senator in charge of healthcare reform, Democrat Max Baucus of Montana, is wholly owned by the health care and insurance industries. He is the recipient of more campaign money from these two groups than any other member of Congress. This is the case for each of the last six years!
President Obama is also being undermined by powerful forces in his own party. Would it not be better to tell the American people about this, rather than accommodate the enemies of real reform within his own ranks? Ralph Nader has explained that Obama, by catering to giant corporations, has made "every mistake Clinton made in the early part of his first term except that he's leaving Michelle Obama out of it." (See Tom Rigbert, "Amy Goodman talks to Ralph Nader on Obama's back room deal with Big Pharma," Cyrano's Journal Online, August 14, 2009.)
The public interest is not served when Obama makes deals with leaders of the system that need replacing. Only by eliminating or at least curtailing the influence of the health insurance industry can efficiencies be realized. Only by dramatically reducing drug company subsidies of legislators can full access to quality care be established.
WHAT OBAMA SHOULD BE DOING
Obama should be mobilizing the progressive base that brought him to the White House. He should campaign for a single payer, Medicare-for-all system. Nader and others cite polls that show a majority of Americans want a public system, not just a public option (though Obama no longer seeks even that). Americans who voted for this president expected and still want a transformational leader, not one devoted to harmony and concessions. (Or simply "choice and competition in the insurance market.")
Maybe none of this will happen unless Obama does what the satirist Andy Borowitz described in his fictional blog recently. Borowitz wrote that Obama "has decided to tailor health reform explanations to all idiotic Americans." He cites a White House statement to the effect that "we clearly underestimated the role that doofuses and dimwits were going to play in this debate." (Andy Borowitz, "In Move to Appease Critics, Obama Promises to Extend Health Care Coverage to Morons," Borowitz Report, August 17, 2009.)
Borowitz went on to note "critics of the president's new plan worry that extending coverage to every American who is a few bricks shy of a load could triple the size of the nation's deficit." Then Borowitz cited cautionary remarks of an imaginary University of Minnesota expert who studies the demography of idiots: "The sheer number of lamebrains in the U.S. is much greater than the Administration estimates. Just look at Glenn Beck's ratings."
If you feel dispirited like me, and if you feel your hopes for audacity were misplaced, well, I suggest you look after yourself to minimize the need for future encounters with the medical system and do what the Monty Python folks suggested back in the 70's, namely, "always look on the bright side of life."
That's what I did when I voted last time, and look where it got me. Oh well, it could have been worse - much worse. Sarah Palin could be a heartbeat away from you know what.
Don Ardell is the Well Infidel. He favors evidence over faith, reason over revelation and meaning and purpose over spirituality. His enthusiasm for reason, exuberance and liberty are reflected in his books (14), newsletter (500 editions of a weekly report) and lectures across North America and a dozen other countries.
