HCR: A Cynical Point of View

I decided to respond to one of Organizing for America's calls to action by writing an editorial piece about the state of health insurance reform.  I sent it off to the Ames Tribune, Daily, DM Register, and NY Times so if any of them know what's good for them, they'll all reject it.

For when they do, I"ve decided to immortalize my opinions (because I can) here on my blog.  Let me know what you think.

by Ian J Barker
We find ourselves at a crossroads in the health care debate.  The clash of Dems vs. Reps has reached a fever pitch and now that the fate of the legislation is uncertain, I cannot say I am surprised.  The rise of special interest groups in this country and the demonstrated effectiveness of well-funded campaigns that threaten to jeopardize our democracy sit poised to – predictably – claim another innocent victim: health insurance reform.

Without going into too much background, allow me to lay out the groundwork for my cynicism.  Public officials run for office in order to influence policy decisions and represent their constituents.  By the basic mechanics of democracy, any public official who fails to represent his/her people would be voted out in the next electoral cycle through conclusions reached in open discussion of felt consequences from representative’s decisions. 

Fundamentally, a representative’s desire is to be re-elected.  It is illogical to argue that politicians seek election for the paycheck when one considers that jobs in a myriad of other sectors are far more lucrative even at the most basic levels.  Therefore, we can accept two things: that public officials wish to be re-elected, and that, if democracy is allowed to function by its most basic principles, the best way to achieve re-election is to govern with the interest of one’s constituents in mind.

Now, the founding fathers established these governing mechanics with the assumption that ideas, both complaints and hurrahs, would flow freely through the marketplace of ideas made possible by the printed word.  This idea held clout largely because, at the time, most people had access to the printing press, which meant that virtually anyone could present their ideas to the reasoned vetting of public discourse.

The problem is that, in our day, a new medium of public discourse has replaced that original marketplace of the printed word.  What was once a two-way conversation has become a one-way barrage of special interest advertisements and factually unchecked political campaigns via the mass distribution of television.  Furthermore, with no built in system of accountability, entities with sufficient funds can reproduce outright lies seven days a week, three-hundred and sixty five days a year for the unquestioning digestion of the American people.  What was once a lively public forum of discussion has become a View-Master of sensationally presented “facts” with no response permitted from the ones whose opinions shape the republic: the people.
In the wake of this development, we have been force-fed talking points ranging from the sketchy to the outright false.  From “death panels” to the dreaded “socialized medicine” – whose absence still does not prevent Republicans from touting the bill as a government takeover – each “threat to our freedom” has received the backing of some wealthy and targeted interest group.  The “Center for Patients’ Rights”, for example, aired an ad the day after President Obama’s speech directly contradicting each of his talking points. 

Now of course it is natural to argue that, despite the prevalence of political ads, surely the strength of the public’s collective reason could weed out the facts from the falsehoods.  Unfortunately history has proven to the contrary.  Declining popularity for the current legislation would suggest that the CPR claimed victory over reason, thanks to the absence of any accountability.  Furthermore, the CPR ad is just one in an army of ads that subvert the truth for niche gains at the expense of broader progress.

The machine continues its march onward, consuming fact and claiming victims as quickly as it identifies the next set of truths to derail at the behest of those wealthy enough to hold the reigns.

The worst of it is that our representatives enable it.  The quest for re-election has one demonstrated path these days: a well-funded campaign.  Since few single citizens possess the wealth necessary to fund these campaigns, the main sources of funding are limited to the special interests who dominate the public discourse.  The desire for re-election, the need for funds, and the possession of funds by interest groups boils down to one, all too prevalent truth in our politics: elected officials must vote in ways advantageous to special interests or risk falling in subsequent elections, a prospect they cannot bear.

Our legislation has been hijacked across the board and it appears that the next victim is health care reform.  As a perfect example of the state of our discourse, health care reform actually started and continues to be health insurance reform, however it now bears only the label that advertisements and sound bites have allowed it to carry.

Despite my cynicism, I still recognize my vested interest in the proposed legislation.  So, all history aside I ask that if my congressmen and women cannot hear my daily frustration that they read in my words here:

As a student, ready to accept the burden of my own health insurance, reading the federal study that health care costs continue to skyrocket, and pleading for a breakthrough in the progress of the American republic, I compel you to listen to the needs of the American people for a step, no matter how large or small, toward containing the corporate monstrosity of health insurance and pharmaceuticals.

America has never been so close to relieving the burden of rising costs and broken promises whose sole responsibility rests on the shoulders of unethical and inhumane money-mongering business practices perpetrated by the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries.  Trumpeting concern for national debt while obstructing progress on progressive, cost cutting legislation serves no one while perpetuating the special interest strangle hold on the men and women we trust to make the best decisions for us.

So now that the back-and-forth discussion of politics has all but evaporated, to what do representatives turn for substantiation when claims are raised that they have abandoned the republic they served?  The new “populism”, which rises from faux grass-roots, manufactured outrage sparked by television advertisements and radio pundits.  But my question is, with even populism shanghaied by the media, how is one to get their concerns enacted in policy?  With true populism based in fact and human experience?

Well then, if you want true populism, here it is: listen to the cries of those whose family members have died under the yoke of health care costs and pre-existing conditions, listen to the concerns here written, and listen to the numbers that demonstrate the crisis we face.  If the millions of families losing their well-being to unethical business practices do not constitute a great enough number of citizens to receive the mantle of populism, to demand the attention of our legislators, then I fear that our republic has lost the fight, both for our reforms and for the preservation of our government as it was conceived.