Obama health bill sets the stage for assault on Medicare and Social Security

[Antid Oto]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

Obama health bill sets the stage for assault on Medicare and Social
Security
24 March 2010

The passage of the Obama administration’s health care bill has been
greeted with a wave of media commentary hailing the measure as a
milestone in progressive social reform and a political triumph for
Barack Obama.

“A historic first step,” editorialized the Los Angeles Times. “Health
Care Reform, at Last” was the headline of the New York Times’
editorial. As always, the revving up of the American media to
overwhelm and manipulate popular consciousness has been impressive.

If anything, the major organs of international finance capital have
been even more effusive. Financial Times columnist Gideon Rachman
published a commentary in which he writes, “By pushing through a
social reform that eluded generations of presidents from Teddy
Roosevelt to Bill Clinton, Mr. Obama can now point to a genuinely
historic achievement.” The Financial Times editorial board published a
similar piece, under the headline “Obama secures his place in history.”

Behind the celebrations of the health care overhaul lies a definite
perspective. The authors of these commentaries see the legislation as
a major step in confronting profound problems facing American and
world capitalism. They are hailing what they consider a breakthrough
in reining in massive US deficits that are destabilizing the world
financial system.

It has for decades been deemed politically impossible to attack basic
entitlement programs in the US, such as Social Security and Medicare,
which account for an enormous and rising portion of the federal
budget. Now, with Obama’s health care plan, the stage has been set for
slashing these programs. This is the reason for the general jubilation
in media and financial circles.

The claim that a genuinely progressive social reform has been
dispensed as a gift from above flies in the face of the whole of
American history. This is a country where every significant social
reform has been the outcome of decades of the most bitter and bloody
struggles against a ruling class that savagely resists social progress.

The enactment of such reforms has always followed brutal state
repression and been associated with martyrs to the cause who were
hunted down, jailed or murdered.

Slavery was abolished only by a Civil War that raged for four years
and cost the lives of 620,000 soldiers and an undetermined number of
civilians.

The eight-hour day was the result of mass strikes in the 1870s and
1880s that culminated in the Haymarket Massacre and the hanging of key
leaders of the eight-hour movement.

The suffragettes endured repeated beatings and jailings in their
battle for the right of women to vote.

Official recognition of the right to form industrial unions in America
was the outcome of a 60-year struggle that began in the 1870s and
continued even after Franklin Roosevelt recognized the right in 1934.
It involved general strikes in major US cities, including the 1934
strikes in Toledo, Minneapolis and San Francisco.

In struggles such as the Flint sit-down strike, workers occupied
factories and faced off against police and troops in industrial
battles that verged on civil war. Ten workers were gunned down in cold
blood and many others were wounded by Chicago police in the 1937
Memorial Day massacre.

It was in the context of such mass working class struggles fueled by
the Great Depression that Roosevelt enacted Social Security.

The enactment of Medicare in the 1960s was the byproduct of the mass
mobilization of African-Americans and their allies in the civil rights
movement of the 1950s and 1960s, in which hundreds of thousands
marched in the face of killings and terror by vigilantes backed by the
state. By the time of the passage of Medicare, the civil rights
struggle had been joined by an upsurge of militant labor struggles and
the initial eruption of the most oppressed sections of the working
class in urban uprisings.

The right of 18-year-olds to vote was secured as a result of the mass
movement against the Vietnam War.

In every case, the victories for social reform represented the
frightened response of the ruling class to mass movements from below.
And in every case, these victories were partial and limited, diluted
with all sorts of caveats, and containing the seeds of their eventual
undoing—due to the limited political perspective imposed on the
insurgent movements by their reformist leaderships.

The moment the working class relaxed its pressure, the gains were
watered down or eliminated.

In stark contrast to this historical experience, Obama’s health care
plan has been enacted in the absence of a mass movement—indeed, in the
face of mounting popular distrust and hostility. The final push for
the bill came after the Democratic candidate was massively defeated in
January’s special Senate election to fill the seat vacated by the late
Edward Kennedy in Massachusetts.

That defeat was the result of growing disillusionment with Obama and
the Democratic-led Congress, which have done nothing while millions
have been thrown out of their homes, millions more have had their
light and heat turned off, personal bankruptcies have broken all
previous records, and wage-cutting—encouraged by the government’s Auto
Task Force—has become epidemic.

The same administration whose policies have encouraged a further
growth in social inequality and the continued erosion of existing
social programs has now, it is claimed, handed down a historic piece
of progressive legislation.

Amidst the official jubilation, no one has asked an obvious question:
If the Obama administration dropped all of those provisions deemed
“progressive” and “liberal”—such as the public option—in order to gain
Republican support, why were they not restored when it became clear
that the Republicans would offer no support and the final bill would
be a purely Democratic measure?

There is another question. In what, precisely, does Obama’s success in
passing health care “reform” consist? Why has he succeeded where
previous Democratic administrations failed?

The basic answer is that discussions of health care reform previously
assumed either some form of nationalization or significant provisions
to rein in the power of the health care industry. Obama, however, has
not only rejected any such measures, he has worked out his overhaul in
the closest consultation with the insurance, pharmaceutical and
hospital companies. The same corporate giants will continue to exert
unfettered control over the health care system.

Far from the health care bill being an exception to the historical
rule, it could be enacted only because of the absence of a mass
movement of working people and under conditions of the collapse of the
old organizations such as the trade unions. It is the product of a
political system in which broad sections of the population have been
effectively disenfranchised and become alienated from the entire
political establishment.

Neither of the two big business parties has any substantial base of
popular support. Politics has become little more than the artificial
creation of public opinion, involving an unprecedented level of media
manipulation.

This social and political vacuum gives the ruling class a degree of
latitude it would otherwise not have to impose legislation that in the
past would have been considered unacceptable. Immense resources have
been devoted to pushing through Obama’s health care bill, but there
has been nothing approaching a serious public discussion in which the
details of the measure are examined. The people have had no say and do
not know what this legislation will mean for them.

In the form of the current administration, the American people have
become the victims of a colossal fraud, in which Obama, capitalizing
on his carefully crafted popular image, is carrying out policies that
previously would have been deemed unfeasible.

The US ruling class is playing the long game. It is seeking to impose
a regime of economic rationalization that has been worked out between
the White House, Congress and big business.

The dire consequences of this overhaul for the broad masses of the
population will become clear over time. They are indicated, however,
in some of the commentaries by supporters of the legislation. The
Washington Post, for example, speaks openly in its editorial of the
“opportunity” to slash costs by rationing care to the general population.

“It means,” the newspaper writes, “establishing pilot programs to
reward quality over quantity—keeping people healthy rather than
administering more tests. It means holding hospitals, doctors and
others accountable… to minimize unnecessary or conflicting care.”

The repeated claims that those who are satisfied with their existing
health plans have nothing to fear are not believable. In the first
place, existing plans are constantly being cut back by employers,
private insurers or both, a process that will only be accelerated
under the health care bill. More and more people will be forced into
plans that provide far fewer services, under which they will be
compelled to pay out of pocket for drugs, tests and procedures beyond
a bare-bones minimum.

The overall strategy underlying the health care bill is indicated by
the New York Times, which writes in a front-page article published
Tuesday that “central to the health care changes are hundreds of
billions of dollars in reductions in Medicare spending over time.” The
newspaper goes on the declare that the victory on health care sets the
stage for an assault on Social Security, the bedrock social program
that currently provides (highly inadequate) pension benefits to 51
million Americans over the age of 65.

“Proponents of acting soon,” writes the Times, “also argue that
changes to benefits or taxes… would immediately reassure global
markets fretful that the United States’ debt is already its highest
since World War II. An agreement on Social Security ‘would send an
important signal to the world,’ said Robert D. Reischauer, a former
Congressional Budget Office director.”

As the consequences of these policies become more clear, the disgust
and anger of working people will deepen. They will resist in ever
growing social struggles. What is critical is that these struggles be
guided by a new political perspective.

The entire experience of Obama’s health care overhaul demonstrates
once again the critical importance of the development of a Marxist
leadership in the working class and the fight for a socialist
perspective. Universal, quality health care as with any other social
advance is possible only on the basis of the building of a mass
socialist movement of the working class.

Barry Grey

http://wsws.org/articles/2010/mar2010/pers-m24.shtml

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********