A reader sends a link in response to the commentary on the GOP’s Senatorial efforts. From that article, “The Real Reason The Elites Keep Killing Single-Payer,” Caitlin Johnstone on Medium:
This isn’t about money, this is about power. The wealthiest of the wealthy in America haven’t been doing everything they can to stave off universal healthcare and economic justice in order to save a few million dollars. They haven’t been fighting to keep you poor because they are money hoarders and they can’t bare to part with a single penny from their trove. It’s so much more sinister than that: the goal isn’t to keep you from making the plutocrats a little less wealthy, the goal is to keep you from having any wealth of your own.
Power is intrinsically relative: it only exists in relation to the amount of power that other people have or don’t have. If we all have the same amount of government power, then none of us has any power over the other. If, however, I can figure out a way to manipulate the system into giving me 25 percent more governmental power than anyone else, power has now entered into the equation, and I have an edge over everyone else that I can use to my advantage. But that edge only exists due to the fact that you’re all 25 percent less powerful than I am. If you all become five percent more powerful, my power is instantly diminished by that much, in the same way a schoolyard bully would no longer enjoy the same amount of dominance if everyone at school suddenly grew five percent bigger and stronger.
Here’s where I’m going with all this: the ruling elites have set up a system where wealth equals power. In order for them to rule, in order for them to enjoy the power of kings, they necessarily need to keep the general public from wealth. Not so that they can have a little more money for themselves in case they want to buy a few extra private jets or whatever, but because their power is built upon your lack of power. By keeping you from having a few thousand extra dollars of spending money throughout the year, they guarantee that you and your fellow citizens won’t pool that extra money toward challenging their power in the wealth-equals-power paradigm that they’ve set up for themselves.
I found myself mumbling, Gosh, I’d be happier with a recording saying just that by Sheldon Adelson. And that was really the problem with that article – where’s the proof? It marks a lot of boxes, it’s congruent with a lot of what we observe happening – but it’s all circumstantial evidence. It ascribes a singularity of purpose to a perhaps diverse group of people. Does Warren Buffet fit into this group? Is Bill Gates good buds with Sheldon Adelson? (Maybe they are.)
It all fits – but it’s not really conclusive. It tastes slightly of conspiracy theory.
As the start of the article, she condemns California State Speaker Rendon for killing a bill providing for single-payer health, claiming this politician, claiming to be a progressive, has been bought by the oligarchs. But Kevin Drum sails in with a load of facts to really spoil the party. Here’s a couple:
Prop 98. Like it or not, California has a school funding law put in place years ago by Proposition 98. It’s insanely complicated, but basically requires that 40 percent of the state budget go to K-12 schools. Using round numbers, if the state budget is $100 billion, school spending has to be at least $40 billion. If state spending goes up to $300 billion, school spending has to be at least $120 billion. Aside from being ridiculous, it also leaves only $120 billion for the health care bill. Oops.
As far as I know, there is no tricky way to get around this. It would have to be dealt with by a ballot initiative. That’s obviously not going to happen in this legislative session.
Waivers. This is the issue nobody pays attention to, but is probably the most important of all. To implement single-payer, California would need $200 billion in new funding plus $200 billion in federal money that currently goes to Medicare, Medicaid, veterans health care, and so forth. Without federal waivers to give California access to that money, the plan can’t go anywhere. As Duke University researcher David Anderson puts it, “If there aren’t waivers, this plan is vaporware.” What do you think are the odds that the Trump administration will grant all those waivers? Zero is a pretty good guess.
Along the same lines, Michael Hiltzik points out that self-funded health care plans are governed exclusively by federal law. That means California would need an exemption from the law. What do you think are the odds that a Republican Congress will grant that exemption? Zero again?
And there’s more. Perhaps Rendon is really just preserving political capital. In any case, assuming Kevin has his facts in a row, I think Caitlin didn’t investigate this subject deeply enough. And it spoils her article more. It really makes me wonder.
