Mmm…Healthcare…
I’m trying to invoke the spirit of Homer on this one. It’s too wearying to watch this “discussion” take place. And it only makes me want to watch football.
After only checking a few stories on the three major news networks’ websites this evening, I’m glad I managed to miss most mentions of today’s protests. As my good friend, Travis Prinzi, says, “Everyone is lying” about healthcare to one degree or another. I quit being bothered by the debate a while ago, because it really isn’t a debate. As Obama’s address to Congress showed, it has only become a matter of one side unable to put forth a clear message while the other side thinks “clear” means screaming at the top of its lungs. I couldn’t figure why I was seeing all the signs that would, in the same sentence, equate Obama with a fascist, a socialist, and a Communist. None of those things can co-exist with the other. But then I realized that for anyone throwing those terms out there (whatever their political affiliation), the words are no more than synonymous with “not free.”
Instead, I find myself rather worried at the moment.
In the largest city in Kentucky, Louisville, a couple of goomers apparently decided to show up to today’s protests wearing camouflage. Now, camouflage is a time-honored tradition in Kentucky, one in which I occasionally partake, myself. I find my digital ACU’s and MARPAT knockoffs to be comfortable, roomy, and immensely useful. And, yes, like many-a-Kentuckian, I do wear them in public, and not solely to work around my house. However, I don’t go around in public carrying signs that recruit for right-wing militias, urging people to carry AK47’s instead of pitchforks. I’ll let you put 2 and 2 together to figure out what their message is for. Now, in no way do I consider these guys and their ilk as representative of conservatives in general. But, they are representative of a very loud voice in the conservative movement. They don’t strike me as actually angry with much that Obama is doing, but more so angry that a Democrat is president.
I am as turned off by this as I was in 2003 when anti-war protesters decided their best course of action was to lay down in the streets and stop traffic. Yeah. Like that’s going to help anyone understand the message. I will remark on one significant difference, though. Anti-war protesters didn’t show up in public strapped with loaded weapons as a “message” for the president, or talk openly of the possibility of an armed revolt headed by a “Bubba Effect” (thanks, Glenn Beck). I find Michael Moore to be as depressingly vapid and simple-minded as many conservatives do. But I’ve never seen the guy insinuate that anyone should die or face an armed revolution because they disagree with him. These guys lost their minds at suggestions that Bush should have been impeached. Can you imagine their response if liberal activists like Moore showed up in public with weapons, suggesting the possibility of civil war after 9/11?
This is my problem with some of the more vocal responses on the Right to Obama. It’s not a disagreement. They’ve become openly threatening, and mainstream republicans have done comparatively little to distance themselves from such statements.
I’ll be even more bothered if this tactic works because it would signal the total breakdown of civic discourse in the United States. Instead of anything even masquerading as civil discussion, the political process will give way to barely contained threats of violence. There are legitimate issues to have with this plan (as I’ll discuss in a minute), but Obama’s healthcare plan is not a threat to freedom in the US. Socializing medicine has never been considered an indicator of oncoming political tyranny. And sorry, but “Obamacare” is not Action T4, as I’ve heard suggested in recent days. The plan does not work toward euthanizing gays and lesbians, the mentally or physically handicapped, or religious minorities in the name of a Final Solution.
I’ve decided in recent weeks that I have no philosophical problem with federally subsidized healthcare. I respect Travis immensely in his support of the Libertarian response to Obama’s healthcare plan:
We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.
Ideally, I agree. Let people determine what they want. It’s a simple principle. And I’m certainly glad libertarians are pointing out that federally subsidized healthcare isn’t a purely democratic or liberal soapbox. But I think this is too naive in the face of the problems that exist at the moment. Current insurance programs often mitigate against “the level of health insurance” that many Americans want or need. I am denied individually purchased health insurance because of a “pre-existing condition” that I haven’t suffered from in more than ten years. When I’ve applied for effective plans that we can afford, I have been denied. Instead, we purchase coverage for me through my wife’s job at a ridiculous rate. Since I’m stringing together multiple adjunct positions (not what I want) in order to make a decent payday, my part-time status at all schools for which I teach means they extend no benefits at all to me. A public option would be of tremendous benefit to us, at least in the short term. And on an added note, I would bet my wife would disagree! But, we manage to live in love and harmony!
As a Kentuckian, a husband, and a man, every bone in my body pushes me to avoid help and assistance in every way I can. I have been taught to be self-reliant to such a degree that I balk at even accepting financial help from family members. I would give it without question to nearly anyone who asks. It’s something I’ve learned to value in the idealized notion of independence bred into me in the Appalachian Foothills, and in my reverence for the vision of America put forward by people like Thomas Jefferson and Ralph Waldo Emerson.
This means that while I might have severe problems accepting help, I have no problem whatsoever seeing a little extra pulled from paycheck if it means some kid suffering from leukemia can get treatment without forcing his parents into bankruptcy to do it.
However, I recognize there is a level of naivete at work in this formulation, as well. While I have no philosophical problem with national healthcare, I do have practical worries. My one major criticism of the healthcare bill up to this point is cost. Even if you don’t balk at the numbers that have been thrown around, it’s a safe bet that the actual costs will be far more than current estimates suggest. It’s a government program. Costs are always higher than initially estimated.
In addition, while such healthcare works wonderfully well in nearly every other industrialized, democratic nation on Earth, none of them have a population well over 300 million people. Even if you’re only talking about a fraction of that number coming under the umbrella of a public option, it would still be an undertaking whose proportions could be staggeringly complicated and impractical. My skepticism, then, doesn’t grow from some abstract fear that freedom will be lost, or the “moral fiber” of America will be left tattered. Instead, I’m simply skeptical such a plan could actually “work” on that large a scale.
It’s this set of concerns that forced me to ignore the Facebook statement circulated by many of my friends the other day about the public option. It’s a noble sentiment to want to ensure that people do not suffer needlessly. But it’s as narrowly construed as the libertarian argument above. It ignores real-world constraints.
So, the thinking head finds itself where it usually does — unsure of an answer. Independents for Homer J. Simpson in 2012…
(Given how I’ve tagged this post, how long will it take before someone blows up my site and accuses me of being a pinko commie or a right-wing fascist? Jay, I know you’ll respond with your unmatched eloquence!)
Good thoughts, Dave. I am seriously disturbed with the far right’s response to President Obama, and I agree with your sentiments there. I’m not interested in labeling all opposition to Obama as motivated by racism, but I don’t know how we can explain the extent and tone of the opposition without bringing it into conversation. The Secret Service says that Obama gets 400 times more death threats than President Bush got.
I can understand the reasons a lot of people would be alright with federally subsidized health care. I can also agree that there’s a certain amount of naivete on both sides, including my own.
I think, as usual in Washington, the strange thing is that (I think) there are already laws on the books to deal with things like denying care for a pre-existing condition. The problem I see is that thus far, we’ve already allowed too much government interference in health care, and that, not a free market, is what’s caused the problems we currently have.
President Obama keeps talking about the 30 million without health care, but one study estimates that allowing individuals to buy health care across state lines would result in 17 million more people being able to afford health care. That’s just one measure!
Anyway, I still have a ton more to learn about this (and I need to, being in the health care industry). I plan to spend some time reading The Cato Institute’s health care page, and also doing some reading on countries that are already doing what Obama wants to do.
Thank you for your post!
Problem = Discussion When this loud group disrupts, there is NO DISCUSSION. I went to one of the forums, I did not get in, but in line people were NUTTS. I actually pay 100% of my healthcare. Now, over $1000 a month for 2. And we are lucky, this is through an old employer, as part of a layoff. We could not get insurance on our own. SO I AM FOR A PUBLIC OPTION. In TN that places me in harms way. Most in line were polite, but some were just yelling. I am 60 and not used to being yelled at. Then, what they yelled was NOT TRUE, and made no sense. To me directly one lady yelled I could get free health care at any emergency room NOW. She doesn’t know, it is not FREE, we pay for it. Then she started on abortion and the Hitler thing. My father raped me, I am for abortion. I am old enough to remember girls dying from back yard abortions. And then Hitler? This lady was not Jewish, or she would know a bit more on Hitler. She would not be in a line on a public street yelling at Hitler, or his movement, now would she? (I think she forgot the role of Hitler youth, and SS. But then, she obviously doesn’t read any history. ) What good does this do anyone? WE have free speech in America for a reason, but it wasn’t to simply drown out the opposition. It was about discussion. The GOP support of the movement is sad. No one in the party has any gutts. A few years back, 3 GOP Senators, Reagan, Goldwater, and Tower, stood up to the out of control, John Birch Society, stating they had simply gone to far.
This is not about health care at all, it is about Obama. In TN, a big part of the MAD, is that he is black. Big government spending/control, isn’t that what “W” did? He entered the office with a surplus, and exited with a staggering deficit, and an economy falling apart. There were no protests on big interference by our government then. And our government was listening to every word they could, weren’t they ATT? Spying on citizens without warrant. Where were these people? /AH yes, 1984? Big Brother?
My friends and I were growing into adulthood, during Vietnam. It was out of control then too. I just knew my friends were dying over there. Some who came home were damaged for life. Somehow it all ended, I hope this will too. And I hope I can afford healthcare. NO JOB now it is a real challenge.
I’m in agreement with Travis’ take on the situation. I can’t see anything but racism as being at the core of a movement to de-legitimize Obama’s presidency. He has been attacked on every front, from his citizenship and religious faith to his political background and governing style. The extreme leftists in Lyndon LaRouche’s organization and the ultra right-wingers are rallying around the same confederate flag. Joe Wilson, who idolizes Strom Thurmond and is a member of The Sons of the Confederacy, is just one noisy, out of control racist among many who supporting and inciting the Tea Party and Birthers movements. These people have found their spokesmen in Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. I don’t see how being in denial about the racial divide in this country can be helpful.
john, thank you for stopping by! I appreciate all the feedback I can get. I know virtually nothing about Wilson, so I won’t comment on his motives. And while I agree that racism certainly drives a very loud portion of the Tea Party response, I wouldn’t lay it on as a blanket over the whole movement. Some, I suspect, are just pissed because it’s a Democrat in office rather than a Republican. I think others actually do believe Beck, Limbaugh, and the like that Obama is a raving fascist/Marxist/socialist.
To me, it’s too easy just to assign that as the singular, dominant motive to the opposition meme that’s emerged. It’s too easy to blame any of it on any one reason. After 9/11, the country took a fairly wide swing to the right, and many liberals had their own apoplectic fit. The pendulum swung the other way late last year and early this year. Any time that happens, the far opposite end of the spectrum is going to feel like “our country is being taken away from us.”
The presentation of the debate though tends to take over the actual debate itself. Or, to echo Marshall McLuhan: the medium (news) has become the message (other side = evil!). It always appears that the spectacle somehow equates to broad representation of the majority view simply because it’s loud. Tea Partiers think they represent “the People.” Anti-war activists argued the same thing. I didn’t protest with anti-war activists in spite of my opposition to the Iraq invasion because 1) they were completely counterproductive, and 2) simply focused on assertions that I didn’t think were true (“No blood for oil”).
Travis, always leave it to you to complicate my thought process! That’s a good thing, though.
It’s really interesting following these debates from over here, and the far right stuff is interesting in that trainwreck way. As a (full disclosure) Canadian with all the expected biases that come on this issue, Obama’s plan is not socialized, it’s guaranteed coverage for people that have no coverage whatsoever now. People that have insurance aready can be covered however we want(if they are lucky enough to have the choice,) which is not what we have, here everyone gets the same care regardless. I don’t understand the argument that things are different for the US because they have a larger population, for some reason this huge population isn’t an overwhelmingly difficult issue to deal with when it comes to public administration of the military, or firefighters, or prisons, or police.
Nadia, actually, we tend to argue a lot about the public administration of all those things. For one, the vast majority of US citizens would agree that none of those services you mentioned are paid enough, thus causing both retention and corruption problems.
Keep in mind that the last US administration made the argument that private military contractors could do certain jobs traditionally performed by non-combat units in the military. The role of PMCs working on behalf of the US in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and plenty of other places around the world has certainly been debated, but not nearly as much in the US as it probably should be. There are lots of documented examples in which PMCs have been implicated in all kinds of illegal activity, but Americans generally don’t care. And tell Americans that a PMC can do the same job cheaper, and plenty of folks will totally jump on board with the idea of privatizing more and more of the military’s traditional responsibilities.
In many small communities, things like EMS and fire departments are either voluntary organizations or private businesses. They often receive very little federal funding, instead relying on state funding, donations, or some sort of business models. Some are non-profits that charge a fee for services, and all the money is fed back into the service to maintain equipment and training. Others are for-profit businesses designed to provide a service and make a buck.
Never underestimate the profit motive in the US. It can lead to certain kinds of logic that I’m sure could only arise in the US.