In a Reuters article about the ongoing health care reform process, there is a very interesting one sentence paragraph:

Insurance companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, hospital managers — and average American patients — all have huge stakes in how the battle plays out.

I doubt that it was a conscious effort on the part of the writer, but this sentence appears to list the "players" in the process of reforming health care in the approximate order of their aggregate financial stake, until the people, as "average American patients" are included as a parenthetical afterthought. Sadly, that hierarchical list also reflects the influence each group has had in the process.

Note that the plan "authored" by Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus was in fact authored by Baucus Senior Counsel Liz Fowler who came back to Baucus’ staff after a stint with Wellpoint as a Vice President.

Further, it was revealed yesterday that the Baucus plan was circulated with lobbyists on K Street before it was made public. Neither the White House nor other members of Congress were given an advance copy along with the lobbyists.

That process, where a revolving-door staffer-turned lobbyist-turned staffer wrote the bill, which was then routed to lobbyists before reaching Congress, the President or the people, reflects the truth of the ordering of forces in the Reuters article.

Unfortunately, as if the power of corporations in this process were not yet enough, the health care reform battle is taking place as a possible preface to even further empowerment of corporations as players in the political process. In a case involving corporate spending on political campaigns, the Supreme Court "cut short their normal summer vacations to hear the 80 minutes of scheduled arguments in the case about a month before the formal opening of their new term". The potential impact of the case which will be argued today:

"Overturning these well-established laws would turn our elections into free-for-alls, with massive corporate and union spending," said David Arkush of Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group based in Washington.

"Corporate influence would likely be strengthened over all policy decisions — on healthcare reform, climate change, trade, everything," said Arkush, director of the group’s Congress Watch division.

If citizens already are parenthetical afterthoughts in our corporatocracy, what will we be in the new, improved corporatocracy if the Supreme Court throws out the few remaining bans on corporate spending to influence government decisions?

As the original Reuters article pointed out, average American patients (and average American citizens in general) have a huge stake in how the health care reform process plays out. They have an equally large, if not larger, stake in how the Supreme Court case is resolved.

The drama unfolding in Washington this week is demonstrating that the power of the corporatocracy is huge. The question is whether the citizens will realize that their power, properly wielded, can be even stronger. Jane Hamsher has done a tremendous job in organizing FDL Action around support for a public option in health care reform. Those advocating the public option will be subjected to a withering attack in the coming battle, so it will be necessary for us to redouble our efforts with phones, emails and contributions in what other ways we can. The health care reform battle is one on which we have had a much larger than expected (by the corporatocracy) impact so far. We must see this battle through, because the other side just might get a huge boost from the Supreme Court in the coming months.