Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin — who has gone to great lengths to hype the supposed dangers of a big government takeover of American health care — admitted over the weekend that she used to get her treatment in Canada’s [developing] single-payer system.
After fear-mongering about the health insurance legislation in 2009, going so far as to lie that the government would have “death panels”, it finally comes to light that Sarah Palin used the Canadian health care system instead of the American system available to her in Alaska. The 1960′s version of Canada’s health care system wasn’t the same as it is today – a single payer system – but it was on the path toward today’s system. It wasn’t the American system; it wasn’t the mythological “free-market” system that Palin today worships so fervently.
Two issues that are being addressed by the 111th Congress and President Obama provide an interesting example of the importance of immediacy and framing. As this post’s title suggests, I’m talking about legislation to deal with our breaking climate and our broken health care system. The way potential solutions are being proposed and discussed provide an interesting contrast.
On the one hand, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454) was passed by the House of Representatives a couple of weeks ago. There was plenty of talk about how the bill didn’t go far enough by climate activists. Some activists, including myself, wondered if the bill should have been voted on in the form it took. As I quickly detailed yesterday, other countries are taking more aggressive steps to ramp down their carbon emissions and ramp up their renewable energy capabilities. I don’t think the ACESA bill, as currently written, will do enough to cut carbon emissions from history’s biggest polluter: the U.S, in time to prevent 2°C or more warming globally. Yet most of what I read and heard after the House vote revolved around something like this: “This bill isn’t perfect, but it’s better than nothing”; “It’s a step in the right direction” and so on. What I didn’t hear, especially from progressive House members, was a refusal to vote for a bill that didn’t get done what science demands to be done. What I didn’t hear was a refusal to vote for a bill that didn’t do what a majority of Americans wanted it to do. Does anyone seriously think Americans wanted the House to give billions in corporate welfare to the nuclear, oil, natural gas and coal industries? Because that’s what had to be stuck into the bill while at the same time reducing emissions and renewable energy targets.
Oil corporations bought conditional senior water rights to 7.2 million acre-feet of water earlier this week. Why? So they can potentially use the water in the future to drill for oil in shale in Western Colorado. Some things come to mind: diverting water from the Front Range to drill for oil in shale won’t go over well if it ever happens; diverting water from downriver states won’t go over well either (read: tons of litigation); oil shale development won’t be viable for decades – by that time, I don’t think we’ll need the oil.
A foundational health care bill passed out of a Colorado House committee Wednesday. Somehow, the Cons think double-digit insurance rate increases year after year should be totally loved by everybody. The reality is far from that. People are justifiably upset with for-profit insurance that doesn’t deliver care. The bill still has to pass the House Appropriations Committee before going to the full House.
Colorado’s newest Senators might be deciding to go the pro-corporatist, non-progressive route in Congress. Sens. Udall and Bennet have joined a gang in Washington (just like the Senator Bennet replaced, Ken Salazar) that tries to sell itself as ‘centrist’. I’m going to be very clear about this: the difference between most Senate Democrats and the Senate Cons isn’t a lovely place called centrism. If they want to join the Cons in their assault on the American worker and our economy, they’re free to do so. Colorado voters are similarly free to examine their efforts and decide if Udall and Bennet are who they want in the Senate. Joining a gang isn’t the worst thing that can happen. But if Udall or Bennet decide to vote like Salazar did – if they develop a clear pattern of voting against Colorado citizens’ best interests, I won’t hesitate to call them on it or work to get somebody else elected in the next election. I was reasonably sure Udall would do this – it remains to be seen how he votes.
Yesterday’s paper version of the Denver Post had a full-page, color ad that lied to readers. It claimed new energy taxes were going to be passed soon by Congress. They provided a website that is full of pro-industy spin and very short on facts. The fossil fuel industry has enjoyed years’ worth of tax loopholes – they’ve cheated the U.S. out of billions of tax dollars. Now that real public anger has bubbled to the surface over fuel costs; now that the public is demanding fossil fuel corporations finally pay their fair share; after years of not developing refining infrastructure but buying up 60 million acres of land that isn’t being drilled, how does the industry respond? With full page ads and websites, part of a multi-million dollar marketing campaign. Remember that when fuel prices shoot back up this summer. And remember this too: fuel corporations were making tens of billions of dollars of profit every three months last year while telling everyone that they couldn’t produce anymore product. The fact is, they refuse to produce more. They’ve refused to do it for a long, long time. Americans are ready to move to a post-fossil fuel era. And that scares the hell out of the industry.
