This week in Parliament Labor will gain another double dissolution trigger, as the Coalition has vowed to stop changes to the threshold for the private health insurance rebate. Labor will be keen to draw a parallel between this move and Abbott’s tenure as Health Minister, arguing that less money will be available for public hospitals. The ALP will also no doubt utilise Barnaby Joyce’s previous equivocal comments on the measure to ram home the point about fiscal indiscipline from the opposition.
Kevin Rudd’s health policy is likely to be the centrepiece of the government’s plan for re-election.
Meanwhile, writing at The Age, Kenneth Davidson provides a very good argument for not subsidising the private health insurers at all.
Reports that Barack Obama is prepared to concede the public option in the health care bill (with some perhaps vague hope that it might be reinserted in a conference between the House and Senate on reconciling inconsistent provisions) expose the difficulty any President faces in securing even an approximation to what are basic and threshold social democratic reforms in the United States.
Leaving aside the obvious attempt to articulate the health care plan with ‘right to life’ scaremongering through all the nonsense about ‘death panels’, we still have a textbook example of how culture and ideology can cause blindness to collective interests (and indeed self interest). No amount of rhetoric about the possibilities of self actualisation and choice over life goals has any meaning if there is sustained structural inequality in health outcomes (and therefore life chances), and if there is no real attempt to ameliorate this inequality through collective action by the state.
At The Global Sociology Blog, SocProf hones in on the reasons for the absence of any discussion of, or even awareness of, class inequality in American culture and politics.
Obama now faces the familiar dilemma of attempting to save political face through the passage of some watered down bill which will do nothing, and may even be harmful, given the capture of representatives and Senators by the private interests of health insurers. Progressives also face a painful dilemma – an oft repeated one: whether to be complicit in the passage of a measure whose momentum is now driven almost solely by political calculation or whether to take a stand on principle. John Odum poses this well. But it seems unlikely that conditions – under the current political arrangements – for the passage of genuine health care reform will ever be more favourable.
Recent comments
Nabakov, Pavlov's Cat, Luke Walladge, Luke Walladge, Salient Green, reb of Hobart [...]
Down and Out of Sài Gòn, Zorronsky, Enemy Combatant, SJ, Down and Out of Sài Gòn, SJ [...]
Nabakov, anthony nolan, jules, anthony nolan, jules, anthony nolan [...]
Nabakov, Snorky, Gummo Trotsky, Ville, joe2, Mercurius [...]
Danny, Fran Barlow, Jacques Chester, John D, HuggyBunny, Chris [...]
Andyc, David Irving (no relation), Saint Furious of Ikea, joe2, Zorronsky, Liam [...]
Fran Barlow, Darryl Rosin, Sam, Paul Norton, Sam, Paul Norton [...]
Martin B, Sam, Lefty E, Mark, Paul Burns, PinkyOz [...]
Robert Merkel, Kiashu, Fran Barlow, Robert Merkel, Kiashu, Mervyn Langford [...]
informally yours, Saint Furious of Ikea, informally yours, Chris, informally yours, Saint Furious of Ikea [...]
rumrebellious, RightHandThread, Nabakov, rumrebellious, Nabakov, RightHandThread [...]
Mark, Saint Furious of Ikea, Luke Walladge, Mark, Paul Burns, Bert [...]