The current commentary on the news consists of attempts to discern how best to hold back the rising health care costs. Despite the many intellectuals, the position maintained by the public — that of a strong government health insurance plan like single-payer, Medicare for all, or a robust public option paying Medicare rates — is always notably absent.

For evidence that a strong public option is all that is needed to reduce costs, one need only to read the letter to the Senate by the presidents of America’s Health Insurance Plans and the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, which stated that a government plan would have “built-in advantages” that would allow it to “take over the health insurance market” because of its inherit efficiencies.

In light of America’s existing democracy — where it’s no secret that a special interest group can kill even moderate health care reform despite, and with no regard to, the preferences of the American public — it’s no surprise that authentic health care reform is not being proposed. The reason is quite obvious: It doesn’t reflect the interests of the Washington’s real constituents.

The cost inefficiencies are no accident. Negotiations behind closed doors — despite campaign promises — between the Obama administration and industry representatives, through the Senate Finance Committee, reflect the relations of power. The pharmaceutical and hospital industries made deals with the administration to limit their cost reductions to $80 and $155 billion, respectively, during the next 10 years.

In addition, details of the PhRMA deal have been leaked. The contents of the leak outline the dictations of the pharmaceutical industry.

The White House would oppose any legislative effort to repeal a generous rebate awarded during a Republican Congress, oppose importation of cheaper drugs, oppose repeal of the law disallowing negotiated drug prices, oppose moving “infusion drugs” to Medicare D where they would get paid less and impose the above mentioned cost reduction limit. Then the reform would be suitable, nay, even beneficial.

Change that we can believe in is possible. A good solution sits idly in a room filled with grandiose debate. But it doesn’t seem as if the proper way forward can be paved without the resolution of our current democratic crisis, where the affairs of the country ought to be directed to “protect the minority of the opulent against the majority,” as James Madison once said.

Until we can improve upon our state of democracy, politics will stay, in the words of John Dewey, “the shadow cast on society by big business.”

It’s also worth keeping in mind that real change is not granted from above, but rather comes from organized popular pressure, much of which has been student-led in recent decades.

To take one recent example, the United Students Against Sweatshops recently forced apparel company Russell Athletics to rehire Honduran workers that had been fired for organizing into a union. This, however, did not happen overnight, rather it resulted from 10 years of building a movement. As Bill Moyers would say, don’t just get mad. Get busy.

— John Kenny is a 2009 graduate from Leavenworth. He was a columnist during the spring semester for The University Daily Kansan.