I am beginning to believe that the Public Option is in fact punched out, behind on points, breathing heavily through the mouth, and unable to focus due to a cut above the eye - a cut that the cornerman is having a hard time closing before the next round. To make matters worse, the Public Option is taking on the champ (corporate interests) in their hometown - Vegas.
We are headed in to the 11th round of a championship fight, and the public option was knocked down twice in the 10th. At this point, between rounds the doctor is checking out the public option to see if it can even continue in to the next round (much less the 12th, and final round - the "championship round"). It would take a knockout at this point, the use of the "nuclear option" if you will, and even then - I do not think the Democrats have the votes to pull it off.
I use the boxing (an interesting sport that I am a big fan of actually) comparison very intentionally.
First, because it is a sport - and the arguments on this issue have so lost sight of the middle ground that this is devolving in to a two-sided affair where other considerations are secondary. It feels as if the concept of a political victory / defeat for either side is more important to many people than the legislation itself.
Second, because boxing is a crooked sport - and there is no doubt in my mind that the wheeling and dealing behind closed doors, money being spent on advertising and lobbying efforts, etc..... has completely corrupted this issue on both sides.
There are a whole bunch of Don King like characters standing around the ring waving their American flags, if you know what I mean.
Frankly, the faith being granted to politicians on this issue (regardless of party affiliation) is alarming, not at all logical, and ignorant of history. They are politicians, they have not earned our trust - nor is there much (if any) basis to trust them to craft legislation that puts the peoples interests ahead of corporate interests - especially when 1/6 of the U.S. economy is in play here.
Anyway, read an interesting - and LONG article (5 pages) today on this issue in Business Week. Linking it here & including several interesting snips of info about the money, and people involved:
**************************************************
~snip~
As the health reform fight shifts this month from a vacationing Washington to congressional districts and local airwaves around the country, much more of the battle than most people realize is already over. The likely victors are insurance giants such as UnitedHealth Group (UNH), Aetna (AET), and WellPoint (WLP). The carriers have succeeded in redefining the terms of the reform debate to such a degree that no matter what specifics emerge in the voluminous bill Congress may send to President Obama this fall, the insurance industry will emerge more profitable. Health reform could come with a $1 trillion price tag over the next decade, and it may complicate matters for some large employers. But insurance CEOs ought to be smiling.
~snip~
UnitedHealth has traveled an unlikely path to becoming a Washington powerhouse. Its last chairman and chief executive, William W. McGuire, cultivated a corporate profile as an industry insurgent little concerned with goings-on in the capital. From its Minnetonka (Minn.) headquarters, the company grew swiftly by acquisition. McGuire absorbed both rival carriers and companies that analyze data and write software. Diversification turned UnitedHealth into the largest U.S. health insurer in terms of revenue. In 2008 it reported operating profit of $5.3 billion on revenue of $81.2 billion. It employs more than 75,000 people.
In 2006, McGuire lost his job after getting caught up in the manipulation, or "backdating," of company stock options. UnitedHealth was forced to restate earnings over a 12-year period to reflect the extra compensation it had granted McGuire and other executives. McGuire's chief lieutenant, Stephen Hemsley, took over as CEO in December 2006. Two independent inquiries concluded that Hemsley wasn't involved with the backdating. Nevertheless he forfeited $190 million in past stock compensation and unrealized gains to resolve the matter.
Hemsley, a former chief financial officer of the now-defunct Arthur Andersen accounting firm, generally shuns the spotlight. But when health reform became a central issue in the runup to the last Presidential election, company executives say they realized UnitedHealth needed to go on the offensive. Hemsley met with White House officials on May 15 and May 22 to promote his company's prescription for cutting federal health spending.
In August 2007, the company hired Sommer, who previously headed global lobbying for Goldman Sachs (GS). He quickly built a new Washington team of former congressional aides and other K Street operatives. One key acquisition: Cory Alexander, former chief of staff for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), an influential moderate Democrat. Alexander had been lobbying for the huge mortgage financier Fannie Mae (FNM). Today, Sommer directs a team of nearly 50 people from UnitedHealth's spacious Washington office on Pennsylvania Avenue, equidistant between the Capitol and White House. The company spent more than $3.4 million on in-house and outside lobbying in the first half of 2009.
Sommer has retained such influential outsiders as Tom Daschle, the former Democratic Senate Leader who now works for the large law and lobbying firm Alston & Bird. Daschle, a liberal from South Dakota, dropped out of the running to be Obama's Secretary of Health & Human Services after disclosures that he failed to pay taxes on perks given to him by a private client. He advised UnitedHealth in 2007 and 2008 and resumed that role this year. Daschle personally advocates a government-run competitor to private insurers. But he sells his expertise to UnitedHealth, which opposes any such public insurance plan. Among the services Daschle offers are tips on the personalities and policy proclivities of members of Congress he has known for decades.
~snip~
Perhaps more than any other insurer, UnitedHealth is poised to profit from health reform. Its decade-long series of acquisitions has made the company a coast-to-coast Leviathan enmeshed in the lives of 70 million Americans.
United's AmeriChoice unit is the largest government contractor administering state Medicaid programs for the poor and federally sponsored plans for children. AmeriChoice's revenue rose 34% last year, to $6 billion, and it has 2.7 million people enrolled. Those numbers should continue rising under reform since congressional Democrats are proposing an expansion of Medicaid to help achieve universal coverage. More of the working poor would qualify for Medicaid, and AmeriChoice can sell itself to states as the leading service provider.
Business Week
**************************************************
The game is rigged folks, it's been rigged from the outset.
Democrats really are not all that different from their Republican counterparts when it comes to corporate / financial influence versus the public good - and they never have been. How have we lost sight of such stark reality? Is our allegiance to either party really worth the risk of furthering corporate agendas / profit margins? Has any allegiance - or even benefit of the doubt - when it comes to matters that involve corporate interests truly been earned in any meaningful way - by either party? I would suggest that the answer to those questions is a resounding "NO".
As I see it, we need to keep that in mind at all times while this legislation is crafted. If you accept this idea as reality, then the potential for a situation even worse than what we face with the status quo becomes all too possible (if not likely). I personally think we need to view any plans being proposed by government - especially as they are modified through negotiation to gain votes - with a critical eye that keeps all of this in mind.