Thoughts on politics and culture
Socialist Party USA Co-Chair Opposes Obama Healthcare BillThere you go. Word's still out on whether he's the Antichrist, but at least Obama is not a socialist.
March 22, 2009- Co-chair of the Socialist Party USA, Billy Wharton, opposes the healthcare bill passed yesterday by the House of Representatives and scheduled to be signed into law by President Barack Obama on Tuesday. Wharton’s opposition is based on the belief that this bill is not a reform. Instead, it is a corporate restructuring of the health insurance industry created to protect the profit margins of private insurance companies.
The bill passed by the House yesterday would mandate all Americans to purchase health insurance coverage or face a fine. It would also create health insurance exchanges, an idea crafted by the right-wing Heritage Foundation, where people would purchase insurance from private companies. Those not eligible for Medicaid but who still could not afford to purchase insurance would receive public funds from the federal government to purchase bare bones coverage insurance plans from private insurers.
Wharton opposes this restructuring on the grounds that the mandates allow private insurers to use the coercive power of the state to enhance their private profits. Insurance credits will serve as a public subsidy to private companies. It is yet another case of public money that could be used for necessary social programs being funneled towards companies that engage in practices that are abusive and detrimental to the overall society. He believes the bill is also a demonstration of how deeply corporate lobbyists and campaign contributions have infected the country’s political system.
“This is not a healthcare reform bill,” says Wharton, “It is instead a corporate restructuring of the American healthcare system designed to enhance the profits of private health insurance companies disguised with the language of reform”
Instead, Wharton believes that public funds would be better spent in creating a national single-payer system. Democratic socialists see such a system of open access to care as one part of a larger transition toward making healthcare a guaranteed human right for all. Wharton calls for people to take power into their own hands by supporting the demand for single-payer health insurance and by conducting a red and green rebellion at the voting booth and in the streets to claim our human rights.
Wharton encourages people to visit the website of the Socialist Party USA to gain more information about the struggle for healthcare and the organization’s broader vision of a democratic socialist society. -- Socialist Party USA
Obama "progressive" ?!!! To argue that Obama is the best choice out of the three offered by the two war parties is well supported, but lets be clear why. It is not because he is "progressive," unless in some Bizzaro World being progressive includes support for expanding the military-industrial complex, the death penalty, the US/Israeli axis of human rights violation, voting for funding the war and the Patriot Act, opposing a universal single payer health plan, pretending clean energy includes nuclear power and corn ethanol, i.e., having a platform almost identical to Hillary Clinton's. Rather, Obama is preferable because:Actually, I disagree with this part of Schwartsman's argument: because, when he was their president, Bill Clinton was able to neuter Democratic progressives in Congress; there is no reason to believe this would not happen in a triangulating Obama administration actively pursuing a consensus with the GOP.
1) He is a Democrat, so with a Democratic President and Congress there will be no more excuses that it is all the Republicans' fault that the Iraq War/Occupation continues, urgent domestic needs are unmet, etc.
2) He is more likely to beat McCain, according to most polls.Not to be argumentative, but Obama has enjoyed a free ride up to now: there is no telling what his standing in the polls will be after the Right's slime machine is through with him.
3) Expectations are higher that he will end the Iraq war/occupation, hence a case can be made that the millions inspired by Obama's campaign will hold him accountable after his election with the help of the real progressives and thereby avoid more imperialist interventions.Okay. By now you're wondering why I'm sending you this piece at all. It's because I think Schwartzman does make the best case there is for supporting Obama. However:
4) And last but by far not least, the election of an African-American as US President will be an historic blow to racism despite his colorblind campaign.True enough, except the exact same argument can be made about Clinton and gender bias. But, and here's the real point,
preferring Obama should also mean voting strategically, so that the only really progressive party on the US scene, the Green Party, can grow and challenge the corporate duopoly. Hopefully many voters especially in safe states will make that choice by voting for the Cynthia McKinney for President, assuming she will be chosen by the Green Party Convention, and putting more Greens into local office.Hear, hear.
