I've been watching the health care debate unfurl in its myriads of ugly ways, as we all have. People are screaming, that's clear - but do they know what they're screaming about - or if the screaming is necessary?
I understand - truly - the frustration. But I also know that far more will be accomplished with civilized debate where calm clarity rules the day. I've seen it happen - but only when both sides were respectful of the other. Really, there are a myriad of things I don't like about several of the proposals - but speaking from experience, we need some kind of resolution.
And will that ever happen until we have a conversation? Because we're not having anything of the sort now. Screaming doesn't bring consensus building - and it also drowns out any opportunity to educate yourself (and for others around you to educate themselves) about the various proposals.
Because when you parse it down to the basics - here's a guy who would like to try to figure out how to make health care accessible to more people. He says so. He has to deal with Congress, who begin picking apart the idea to benefit their lobbyists, and completely ignore his edict to reach across the aisle and work together. Senate and House chambers become two rooms full of Veruca Salts and Raymond Babbitts. There are at least five versions of this bill floating around, all varying in size and scope, and to top it off, there's a quitter in Alaska claiming he wants to kill Granny, even though the thing she objects to was something that was actually first introduced by Republicans a few years ago when they wanted to reform Medicare. I am going to wager that probably 99 percent of these screamers at the Town Hall meeting haven't read about the various versions of the bill, and they've clearly forgotten their Schoolhouse Rock, or they'd realize that until it makes it out of committee and onto the floor, it's an idea, not a bill.And nobody's really read all of the proposed bills. Some legislators said they're never going to. But things start making their rounds on the Internet and various right wing elements, and soon all kinds of various and assorted jacked up claims are affixed to the idea.
So instead of debating the merits of health care reform in measured, moderated tones designed for progress, we have women holding up signs with little Hitler mustaches drawn on the President's face. These selfsame people, no doubt, were the same ones lecturing war protesters during George W. Bush's term that "this is America. If you don't like it, get out."
And you have certain media types that probably don't even really believe half the stuff they say on the air, stirring this fetid gumbo of racial animosity, ignorance and assorted insanity to a rapid boil. Because people have forgotten how to be provocative, and are now simply settling for being shocking. There's a difference - and one requires a lot more intelligence and elan than the other.
What I'm wholly tired of, truth be told, is the hypocritical stance many take. "Socialism!" they scream (although they don't have a clue what the word actually means), but if their purse is snatched or car broken into, they call the police. The police - who are paid for with taxes paid by the citizenry of that particular city, but who are required to render aid and protect anyone within its confines, taxpayer or not. They get their information from message boards found on the Internet on their computers powered by electricity, call their friends on telephones, and possibly even fly to remote locations to vocalize their distaste for "socialism," all without realizing that this whole time, they've been the willing beneficiaries of "socialism's" largess.
If you're going to yell fire into this crowded theater of arsonphobics, at least own it, already. Go off the grid completely. Make your own electricity, grow your own food, refuse to leave that island, don't watch TV, don't use the Internet. Because what you really mean is you don't like the government interference - which is wholly different from socialism. A country can be both socialist and democratic, because socialism is a economic system, not a political one.
So let's quit treating social discourse like center ring at the WWE. Knock off the showboating, and sit down for a productive discussion on priorities in health care.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Catherine Forsythe
Nick Carraway
Elizabeth Ross-Harrison
Alyssa Harelik
Lonnie Lazar
Judy Berman
Salon.com
Comments
Cathleen Hulbert/exhausted healthcare social worker
He really said that...he really did. It's like the whole infrastructure provided for these folks is invisible, and they really have no idea what the hell they are talking about.
Here on OS...I am constantly debating a particularly right wing fellow military veteran whenever he bemoans taxes. Duh...they don't mind taxes spent to kill ________ (fill in the blank) or to fight the global war on ______________(you get the drift)...but they'll be damned if they want to pay taxes to HELP people...god forbid!
"Everyone" who is not pro- isn't a republican...
"Everyone" who is pro- isn't a Democrat...
"Everyone" who is against it isn't against it for reasons of "socialism"...
Painting with a broad brush using terminology that does nothing but incite others is no more encouraging actual discussion than "republicans" have been accused of.
Instead of pointing fingers at others... we ALL need to take a step back, sit down, shut up and listen for a change. Unfortunately, that's NOT going to happen because the people who see nothing but the "good" REFUSE to even acknowledge that the entire idea isn't paved in gold and held together with chocolate and those who see nothing but the "bad" REFUSE to acknowledge that there IS *some* "good" in the doing.
@Mrs. Raptor: Maybe I misunderstood your comment, but I don't see any "everyone"s in this post. There are some people exhibiting specific behaviors pointed out, but no label placed on these groups other than their particular behavior.
I've yet to see the republican who is "for" reform that involves any form of care for those who can't afford it (perhaps this person exists, but I'd be surprised).
This represents a "Cobbling Together" of several comments I posted on "Kind of Blue" and Steve Blevins' blogs- thought I might as well post them as a standalone, but I wanted to respond to your post by “Using My Inside Voice” both in tone, and also in the sense that I am a voice from inside the opposition to “Obamacare” who nevertheless would like to see universal healthcare. If you will read and reflect on the motivations of “your opposition”, I hope we might be able to get past all the name calling and start to make some progress.
I’m not sure why or if it makes any sense at all to point out that it isn’t that us yokels in flyover country trust Insurance or Pharmaceutical companies to have our best interests at heart, it’s that we trust Government even less. I don’t know if you had heard the line before Reagan used it, but it is a truth engraved in stone out here, that the Biggest lie ever told is “We’re from the Federal Government, and we’re here to help you” If you can’t conjure up why that is, I won’t bother to try to illustrate it, I’ll just assure you it is so. At any rate, we know all we need to know about our well meaning country cousins who we elect to get us “Fair Government” only to have them seduced by “Playing in the Major League”( and incidentally becoming eligible to take major league bribes, (Campaign Contributions))You think we aren’t sick of the way Corporate America runs roughshod over our rights, our lives, and our livelihoods? The only thing more disgusting is how our government bows and scrapes and frisks in order to solicit bribes from them. At least the corporations don’t try to lie to us about what their concern actually is. (making money)(well, lately they do, I blame my brother the ad executive for that)
What the left wing has to get over is thinking that they can pass off the anger of the rural hoi polloi as mere “ignorance” We know who we’re mad at, and why. Believe me, there is plenty of anger at Corporate America ( At this point, with globalization, Corporate Un-America). A great deal of the anger at the government is that they do not protect us from The very Un- American legal fiction that “Corporations” are “Citizens” and thereby have “Rights”
All that to the side Steve Blevins has a post up extolling the virtues of Swiss Health Care, And that’s great as far as it goes. The problem is that what he is posting is a rehash of a Paul Krugman article that basically says, ”Wait, your taking this all wrong, THIS is what Obamacare will be! (Trust Us )” The problem is that you don’t need to be a Rocket Surgeon to notice the big difference between Obamacare and Swiss healthcare, which is:
The Swiss Plan is based on private insurance corporations heavily regulated by the Swiss Government.(Which is heavily regulated by the Swiss Citizens) Obamacare is a basic take over and movement towards a single payer government plan, regulated by the government.(which doesn’t appear to be regulated by anything anymore, much less The Constitution)
Do you see the problem? The point I was trying to make is that the thing government does do well is regulate trade among its citizens, and among the citizens and foreign citizens. That is the main reason we have a federal government. It was established to regulate trade.
It most definitely was NOT established to provide services, The only service the federal government is authorized is postal service- a monument to government efficiency.
I’m not going to argue about it, I’m telling you what we KNOW- if that makes us ignorant in your eyes, so be it. You’re still going to have to work with us if we want some semblance of universal health care.
What needs to be pointed is that we do accept the government in some roles, and we recognize that some things it does well. Building roads is a good example, but it takes place at a local level where we can show up at someone’s office and complain if they get out of hand. Also, most construction projects are done by independent contractors, not government. Governments role is to oversee and regulate,
The same is true of our utilities, water treatment and sewage is usually a municipal function, and since it is a true health issue, no one really thinks it should be put up for private bid, But when I lived in Columbus, Ohio, we had frequent Boil Notices, and occasional sewage releases ,
Electricity is perhaps the most “Regulated Free Market” model. I belong to a rural co-op. We no longer make our own electricity, if we ever did. We buy it off the Grid at a negotiated price. Some municipalities still have their own plant. Mostly what we have now is a grid supplied by large Privately Owned and heavily regulated power plants, including Nuclear plants. No one thinks Benjamin Stolzfoos should be able to open his own mini nuclear plant and sell electricity. (Not that he would, he’s Amish)
That brings us to the current issue. Steve Blevins post does point out a system that works. The Swiss system. Unfortunately, that isn’t where the health care bill debate is headed.
Paul Krugman’s article is pretty much smoke and mirrors because he’s saying that if we would just give Government a chance, this is what it could be. He neglects to mention that the key difference between Swiss Care and Obamacare is who provides the insurance. In Swiss Care it is privately owned corporations, HEAVILY regulated by the Swiss government, which is heavily regulated by the Swiss citizens. This is called “Government by the people.”
Obamacare, near as we can tell behind all the talk, would consist of a Government insurance plan, “Competing” with private insurance. The government would then make the rules, “Invest” our money. And regulate itself. Judging from the way government has invested Social Security and Medicare funds, what I would get for my money is more, and less controllable government.
So, if anyone is really interested in having universal healthcare, what needs to happen is to make sure our money for premiums goes into heavily regulated private insurance companies, and not into Big Government's slush fund. If Big Government wants to get back to the job that it was designed for, Big Govt. can regulate the hell out of Big Insurance and Big Pharma, and most of us in flyover country will cheer it on.
What the Left and the Right both need to do is to quit talking past each other and decide that the Swiss Model is what we want. Then we might make some progress.
End First Comment
I wrote this in response to a suggestion that perhaps the best thing I could do to promote healthcare was sit back and let the intellectuals handle it. I didn't take this as an insult or anything, it was kindly meant. It just struck my funnybone as being a remarkably apt illustration of the "divide" over Healthcare
I ‘m not really sure what to say in response, but where I live I’m the “intellectual”
I’m not pitching an intellectual argument, and I’m not putting myself forward as the sole example of intellect around here. Hell, I don’t even know how to hitch a horse to a plow, let alone plow a straight furrow. I am some use at fixing tractors, but I have no idea what to do with a sick cow. I hardly ever get called on to install or fix a computer. Folks who have them generally bought them in the '90's and Win98SE does all they want done.
All I’m doing is reporting what I observe. I’m doing that because I would like to see health care reform. As would many of my neighbors. What we are certain will happen if the government provides health care insurance, is what happened with Social Security “Insurance.” When I signed up for Social Security in the '60's, I was promised that my “Contributions” would be invested ( just like an insurance policy) and the interest would accumulate and when it came time for me to retire, I’d have a nice little nest egg. The only problem is that the government, being the government, decided that the best investment for my money was, hang on, you guessed it! More Government! So that we could do things like the Scenic Rivers Act and the Wetlands Act , etc. that allow the Government to dictate how we use our land with no reimbursement, to name just two off the top of my head. No argument, just my view of my neighbors views.
Again, no argument, just my observation and opinion. My neighbors trust the government with their money just about as far as I can shot putt a bus. Not that they trust the Insurance company either, but see, the government is supposed to be regulating those guys, not splitting the “Take” with them.
I would very much like to see “Insurance” reform- but I don’t see that happening unless the government recognizes that the people who oppose them, just flat don’t trust them. You can argue all day whether they should or shouldn’t trust the government, end of the day, they don’t. And no amount of “Hope” and “Change” rhetoric is gonna fix that at this point.
IMO one of three things can happen at this point.
1 The Government can recognize that the people don’t trust them and offer a health plan on the Swiss model where the insurance companies hold the money and the government holds the insurance companies by the throat, which will ease a lot of the worries we have in fly over country. (Set a thief to watch a thief) And can be negotiated about in a reasoned manner and could eventually result in universal health care.
2. The government can insist that it “Hold the Swag” and tell us that we just have to trust them to be just as financially responsible as they’ve been with Social Security, and we’ll have a big dustup, and in the end the democrats will lose and the federal government will lose all credibility and we will spend three and a half years with a lame duck president and a completely deadlocked congress.( Not a bad thing, in many peoples opinion)
3. the government does as described in option 2, only it some how manages to ram thru it’s version of healthcare for “Everyone’s own Good!” and perhaps precipitate a civil war.
(An interesting Supreme Court Question- in these times of “international law” if Chechnya can secede from Russia, can Texas secede from the US?)
End of Second Post
Begin response to my comment- Quoted from “Kind of Blue”s Blog – not attributed because I don’t feel comfortable quoting someone else’s comment as anything other than that it set up my reply
“Token, you brought up social security. I don't know why people say it's an example of how government doesn't work when they're getting their social security checks just like clockwork. It is the biggest government program out there, and it works. And the postal service, while hardly a model of efficiency, gets those checks to people's mailboxes.
The postal service, for $0.44, will come to your house six days a week, pick up your mail, put it on a plane, and get it to anywhere in the United States. They'll deliver it to an Eskimo village in Alaska or a small town in Hawaii for that $0.44. Try doing that with FedEx or UPS. If they even deliver to those places, it'll cost you a hell of a lot more than $0.44.
As far as what you're calling for, regulation of the insurance industry to the point where the government is essentially calling the shots, I'd be fine with that. Basically, what you're saying is that you want health insurance to be another utility.
Hell, man, it might even improve their margins. United Health had a net margin of less than four percent over the past 12 months. Duke Energy had a profit margin of 9.4 percent during the same time.
But unfortunately, the same people who want to scuttle the public option do not want regulations that would go to the level you want.”
End response to my comment
Begin my last comment
I AM one of the people who want to “Scuttle the “Public Option”, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want universal health care, it just means I don’t trust the government with any more money or any more power.
Here’s what I find when I google “Social Security Deficit”:
http://www.factcheck.org/article302.html
Does Social Security Really Face an $11 Trillion Deficit?
January 21, 2005
Bush and Cheney say yes. But actuaries say the figure is "likely to mislead" the public on the system's true financial state.
Summary
President Bush and Vice President Cheney have told audiences that Social Security faces an $11 trillion shortfall if nothing is done to fix the current system. But they fail to mention that this is over the course of the “infinite future." Over the next 75 years -- still practically a lifetime -- the shortfall is projected to be $3.7 trillion.
So it's only 3.7 trillion in the hole, I feel much better
And “postal service deficit”
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-19535958.html
Postal Service Deficit
The Washington Post | October 28, 2008 | Copyright
Net Income or Loss:
2008: -$2.3 billion
2007: -$5.14 billion*
I’m not trying to be argumentative, but you present the “Front” side of the Postal Service and Social Security, but even a cursory glance at the “Backside” seems to us to show a bottomless pit, covered by a thin web of lies and papered over with worthless government “IOUs” .I know, I know, the IOU’s are covered by the “Full faith and credit of the US Government” Which will be good right up until the Chinese quit buying the debt, and the bottom falls out.
The point once again is that it really doesn’t matter what “Economic Models” are used to assure us that it only looks like Social Security is bankrupt, we see that the money we “Contributed” that was supposed to be safely stashed in a (as I recall someone describing) “Lockbox” earning a safe and conservative interest rate, IS GONE! Instead, government at sometime, (I think it was under Carter, not sure of that) decided “Hey, here’s some money we haven’t spent yet” and popped open the lockbox, dumped the money in the general (slush) fund, and stuffed the lockbox full of increasingly worthless IOUs.
So, yeah, Social Security is still sending out those checks, but it’s only because they’re doing a Compulsory Ponzi scheme where they take money directly from working “Investors” and funnel it directly to those who are receiving “Benefits”. The crunch is going to come when us boomers really hit the system and we have something like 1 worker paying the benefits to two or three retirees.
Anyway, in some ways it is irrelevant “Why” we don’t trust the government to be fiscally responsible, it’s sufficient “That” we don’t trust them.
So, yeah, I’m pretty much talking “Public Utility”, and yeah, I don’t think you’d have to do much arm-twisting to get either us “yokels” or the insurance companies to go for it. The yokels understand the need for Government regulation when somebody is “holding” their money, they just don’t trust the government to hold it. Insurance companies understand guaranteed minimal profit vs high risk “Jackpot” profit. Especially when the Government (controlled by The People) says that that’s the only game in town
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=112345150&m=112345122
If you are so all-fired-up about this, put up your comments as a post, willya?
Thanks for your post, Beth A. Rrated for being sane.
Beth requested an "Inside Voice" I attempted to answer that request, in a thoughtful and complete manner. I wasn’t aware that OS was running out of storage space. If you aren't interested in what your opposition has to say, just scroll past it and continue to work yourself up about all those ignorant rubes who just don' t get it. Then you can continue to marvel when we show up at town halls and use our " OUTSIDE VOICE"
Fetid gumbo... that is a hell of an image.
And I completely agree with your sentiment.
Socialism is about producing and distributing of goods and who controls the economy.
The police do neither.
Fine, so by your logic, since healthcare is a service (much like the police force or public schools), having a public option isn't socialism either. Glad we're straight on that.
Token,
Your comment was about twice as long as the post. Inappropriate. If you're unable to make your point in a reasonable amount of space, you need to make your own post. It's just rude otherwise.
BTW, regarding whether health care should be regarded as a "right" -- as I noted in the first of my 4 posts on health policy reform at bgladd.blogspot.com:
"It is beyond dispute that, should you show up at the hospital ER in life-threatening condition and documentably lacking material resources, you must be treated in the same clinical manner accorded the billionaire. So, in this quite limited sense, health care is a "right." But, beyond such narrow circumstances, access to health care is overwhelmingly a function of your ability to pay, unlike your "rights" to police and fire protection, or to military defense.
There are in fact communities where enforcement of the latter, more fundamental rights are contingent on your ability to pay.
They're known as Tribal Warlord Societies.
.
The way it is framed is totally appropriate. And your use of the term "free market" is far less accurate than calling a public utility "socialistic". "Private" is one thing, but "free market" does not and cannot exist. At some point there is regulation, and all agree that at some point there should be. Even an economy with no currency and no regulations at all will have corruption. That is not a "free market", and that is the lowest threshold. "Free market" is a fantasy concept created to confuse, manipulate, and disinform.
As for the term socialism, you only take exception if you feel that the term is loaded with negative connotation. It should not be. It should not have a negative connotation any more than the term shoe lace. It is a term for a specific thing. And as for its "working" or not, that is another fallacy of the unenlightened. Socialism requires management just like capitalism requires management. There are no automatic solutions. The fallacy is created with the notion that "free market solutions" work themselves out, or are self correcting, and everything else does not. That has NEVER been true. That is the myth. Socialism is no less workable than capitalism. It all concerns the level and amount of regulation. One thing is for certain, there is NO SUCH THING as a free market. It simply cant be done. That is fantasy.
1 The Government can recognize that the people don’t trust them and offer a health plan on the Swiss model where the insurance companies hold the money and the government holds the insurance companies by the throat, which will ease a lot of the worries we have in fly over country. (Set a thief to watch a thief) And can be negotiated about in a reasoned manner and could eventually result in universal health care.
2. The government can insist that it “Hold the Swag” and tell us that we just have to trust them to be just as financially responsible as they’ve been with Social Security, and we’ll have a big dustup, and in the end the democrats will lose and the federal government will lose all credibility and we will spend three and a half years with a lame duck president and a completely deadlocked congress.( Not a bad thing, in many peoples opinion)
3. the government does as described in option 2, only it some how manages to ram thru it’s version of healthcare for “Everyone’s own Good!” and perhaps precipitate a civil war."
Token, I just have to wonder, why only these three possibilities? Why can't there be the 4th possibility, that a UHC bill passes that gives people a public option, it works, and America becomes the better for it despite the misgivings of "fly-over country?" Why is that possibility just not on your radar?
I also find your intmation that all government is corrupt to have a logical fallacy. The same fly-0ver country folks who supported Bush without a second thought for 8 years, and Reagan before him, miss the fact that it is because of these two administrations that the government can't keep the reigns on health insurance company today. It is their deregulations with the so-called "free market" in mind that led to both the financial crisis we have seen in the last year, and the skyrocketing cost of medical care. So while I understand that you and your fellow fly-over country folks are wary of government interference, I have to wonder why they didn't speak up during the Bush administration, and only now speak up when sites like FreedomWorks urge them to?
Also, how can we have UHC without government involvement? Whether it is heavy regulation of the insurance companies or the Public Option, there will be government involvement at some point, and I would rather have the public option there in case I still can't afford the private insurance companies once the regulations do kick in. I also find it rather myopic to say that, even though you have grown a mistrust in the government because they can't regulat the insurance companies, you will trust them if they suddenly enact regulations, yet you won't trust them to help you out on a public option. The two go hand in hand, and the government, by competing with the insurance companies in this way, just might bring overall private costs down.
And so what if we do move towards a single payer plan? Would it really be that bad to walk into a hospital for any given medical ailment and come out not having to pay one cent out of your pocket? In spite of some of the videos I have seen, it works just fine in Canada and Britain. If it's good enough for them I don't see why it can't be good enough for Americans.