Lost in the ongoing debate for a national health care system are questions of personal responsibility. If we as a nation accept and require that everyone should receive health care services, shouldn’t there be some minimal standards of responsibility to help the program along?
If we’re “all in this together” as we’re being encouraged to believe, shouldn’t there be shared responsibilities? If Congress is going to mandate a health care program where some Americans must pay for others, shouldn’t there at least be some rules?
It’s a question of fairness. If “Bob” will be taxed to subsidize “Joe’s” health care, shouldn’t “Joe” be required to stop smoking? Why should “Cindy” have to pay for “Helen’s” medical bills when “Helen” is eighty pounds overweight, refuses to exercise, and eats at Applebee’s twice a week?
If America decides to establish a national health care system, then smoking should be outlawed. In addition, people who are obese should not be served in public restaurants and bars. As for alcohol, it should be unlawful for establishments to serve any patron more than two drinks in a 24 hour period. Smoking, over-eating, and too much alcohol affect health adversely and crank up the costs of health care.
In the minds of many, it’s perfectly alright to have the coercive power of the state used to shift wealth from one group of Americans to another. In the case of health care, “the ends justify the means.” But do they really? Shouldn’t the coercive power of the state be applied fairly and evenly?
If the government outlawed tobacco, required daily exercise, and restricted alcohol consumption, Americans would lead healthier lives and health care costs would plummet. Why is the application of state power only being contemplated on the “funding” side of the health care equation?
Sarah Palin may be a loon, but it looks like Peter Campbell wants to set up the Silicon Valley Death Panel.
“Former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin defended her claim that the Democratic health care proposal would create “death panels” in a statement Wednesday night slamming President Barack Obama.
“Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system, these ‘unproductive’ members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care,” Associated Press
I contacted the White House as they requested on their website. It is obvious that Mr. Campbell is attempting to torpedo Obama Health Initiatives by writing such twaddle insisting that fat people be denied health care.
President Obama is working for the best health care plan for the American people, while Campbell is attempting to seize the debate and twist it around to suggest parts of the program that do not exist.
Obama wants health care for all Americans, while Campbell is attempting to propose rationing care for people of low economic circumstances.
Pete,
All good and true points but the Feds would never offend anyone for smoking or being fat – that’s just not politically correct. They will, however, tax the crap out of smokers – an easy and wholly addicted target group to be sure.
Oh, and the most holy of holies on the PC scale, illegal aliens, will be given a free ride on this one. ObamaMamaCare will tax and ration care for poor suckers like us, while a giant virtual billboard will be posted at the border saying, “COME ONE, COME ALL, YET ANOTHER FREEBIE!”
Sounds like Campbell wants to be put in charge of a Reed verison of the death panels that ex Governor of Alaska speaks about.
Campbell is just a right winger in disquise, and if you are elderly, needing assistance, Campbell wants to weed you, or Reed you out.
I wear shorts and I am Swiss, and I am healthy. Peter is right, a line should be formed, one row, healthy thin people, and the other fat smokers.
March!
Pete Campbell—the Health Fuhrer. Sieg!!!!
“WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. – Les Paul, the guitarist and inventor who changed the course of music with the electric guitar and multitrack recording and had a string of hits, many with wife Mary Ford, died on Thursday. He was 94.
According to Gibson Guitar, Paul died of complications from pneumonia at White Plains Hospital”
Peter Campbell is right. I bet this guy actually went outside and breathed. Why should we get the bill?
That’s the problem. Government already wastes too much time and money trying to dictate behavior. It needs to stop. Getting rid of this budget-busting socialized medicine plan would be a good place to start.
PETER CAMPBELL FOR HEALTH CARE RATION CZAR, FIVE YEARS INTO THE FUTURE.
A line in front of San Jose’s New Medical Center Emergency Room
Peter Campbell in his new red and yellow military uniform with the simulated rank of Major appears outside with a clip board.
“Everyone that has weighed in at 103 pounds for females and 145 pounds for males, may enter.”
A group of eight very confused people coughing is left.
Campbell goes to the first. “I know you”
Heavy set man begins sobbing. “I am Armando Gomez and I ate some bad mayo”
Campbell shakes his head. “And candy, too. Begone you usurper of public health money.”
A befuddled bald man walks up. “Chuck Reed” he says.
“I have told you before, Mayor Reed. A depressed attitude is a preexisting condition!” sends him away.
Pat Dando walks up with Nancy Pyle. “Peter we have a fever.”
Campbell shrieks, “Infected mascera brushes, don’t even think it”
Number 6, you are a cool guy. That is exactly the mind Peter shows, all march to him. You keep up the good work. Direct and spot on!!
San Jose Budget Director Armando Gomez has missed any meals, so Peter, is he the first to be denied care??
It’s called political satire, when one advances an extreme position to make a point. These over the top suggestions were advanced to make the point that people would strongly object to the governemnt interfering with personal freedoms (ie what to eat, drink, or smoke)…but there is little or no objection to charging and taxing people to pay for the actions and habits of others. Sorry you missed the entire point!
Without addressing tort-reform, the cost to bring drugs to market and insurance vs. welfare, a debate over gov’t lowering the “cost” of health care is downright laughable.
Right now, talks of the gov’t lowering the cost of health care means not paying for certain things. Although Pete gets mocked for his pseudo-sarcasm, if we are all pooled together there is no doubt that is where the debate will lead, if were still allowed to debate.
“In fact, the provision in the bill would allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. The conversations between doctor and patient would include living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill, and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort.”
Peter Campbell needs to sign off on such consultations as San Jose’s Newest Health CZAR. Chronically sick people to be banished to the San Antone valley, or the Alviso shacks.
#12
It’s called political satire
I knew Jonathan Swift. Jonathan Swift was a friend of mine. Pete Campbell, you’re no Jonathan Swift.
We’ve all heard stories about a person w/ some fatal or drastic ailment and his/her insurance co. turns them down for treatment. That is a reality and one could call them “death committees” the proposed ObamaCare plan doesn’t need to mention them or call them by name but there is nothing that says that similiar proceedures wouldn’t continue.
Obama claims that the new plan will not increase our deficit but we’ll add 50 million to the system – so corners will have to be cut someplace.
Something else that isn’t mentioned but will have to be a reality is the fact that a person signed up with a gov’t plan will have to make all their financial, health and familly history records available.
If people were squawking about Bush Co listening in to potential (and some real)terror threats they should really get worked up about this invasion of privacy – right?
What I’ve not heard specifically is what to do about very steep legal costs that greatly hinders medical practitioners. Of course the trail lawyers assoc is the 2nd biggest contributor to the political machine so that may be one reason Congress won’t address that issue.
Or – what is wrong with just freeing up the health insurance industry to be more competative? You can buy car insurance from a lizard in Maryland and home insurance just about anywhere – and they’re affordable.
But most states have restrictions on who can sell health insurance thus limiting the competition. why not just fix that instead of creating a new giant federal bureaucracy?
and finally. We don’t want to be a nation of elitists so whatever health insurance Congress has – – I’ll take that and give the same helping to 300 million other Americans too.
I want a nation of eltists especially a nation where I can tell people what to do, and whine when people call me on my columns.
#16: “We’ve all heard stories about a person w/ some fatal or drastic ailment and his/her insurance co. turns them down for treatment. That is a reality and one could call them “death committees””. So you propose doing nothing to solve that problem? How caring of you.
You are worried about the government knowing things about you? Have you heard of the IRS, the Social Secuiryt Administration, etc? They know everything about your financial and residential history. What bothers me is that now it is insurance companies, PRIVATE entities, that know everything about my medical history and make decisions about what health care I deserve and what I don’t. Somehow this status quo seems to be ok to people. Even those of us who have been lucky enough to have excellent health care plans all our life have at times appaled rejected claims and fought to get coverage for reasonable medical care.
I don’t care how much we “free up the health insurance industry,” as long as their goal is to maximize their profits, they will be incentivized to turn down claims and reduce expenses. This is not the best way to administer health care in this country. Fortunately, the members of Congress know that and can see through the clutter of this debate to the real problems.
I propose that whatever “public option” the government comes up with, all government employees be required to participate.
Pat #19. Your fear of a public option is bizarre. The point here is to provide an alternative for 50 million people who cannot now afford or qualify for insurance, and also to bring costs down through real competition. If the public option is not competitive in quality then the plan won’t work, but neither will it work if there is no public option at all.
I don’t like ObamaCare.
Now James Rowen needs to submit my un-American comment to HUAC at
fl**@wh********.gov
Dissent is no longer patriotic.
I don’t have any faith in a health care system run by our federal government based on how they have run everything else. If I was one of the supposed 46 million uninsured (including illegal aliens) I would probably be for it, but that leaves 300 million who have insurance without more government bungling and incompetency.
I agree with Lloyd Bentsen. Sorry, Pete. You’re not skilled enough a writer to pull off satire. It comes across as an ignorant rant. Stick to the opinion writing. But it would be nice if we knew if you had an expertise about the topics you’re writing.
The selfishness of the anti-health care folks on this site is appalling. I’ve got mine, too bad if you don’t have yours. I’ll pretend you don’t exist and go on my merry way. I’ll complain about costs of reform as if having 40 million+ uninsured folks isn’t costing me a penny.
If the opinions on this site are at all representative of the rest of the country, then even God won’t be able to help us. RIP.
#20, not scared. And not 50 million. And of the X number of uninsured, roughly 17 million earn over $50,000/year, and choose not to. Aren’t they allowed that choice?
Chairman Pete Campbell has ordered push ups for Pete Constant before he is allowed any aspirin, or flogging by his cute pie domme at the next City Council joke night.
30 – You still make no sense. Do you not believe there are millions of uninsured? What will it take for you to believe?
You ask shouldn’t people be allowed to choose whether they want insurance or not—do you think the rest of us don’t pay for those who aren’t insured whether by choice or economic conditions? I’d be interested to hear how leaving the current system in place benefits anyone vs. some type of a national health care plan that evens out the costs.
Pat #30:
They should only be allowed that choice if they are barred from receiving even emergency care on anyone’s dime but their own. But of course, hospitals can’t know for sure that they will be paid before administering treatment. If they waited to find out, people would die. Is that the society you want? So when the uninsured show up in the emergency room and then are billed for $10,000 and don’t pay, who do you think ends up paying for them? WE DO! Our insurance premiums, co-pays, etc reflect the cots of covering the uninsured. That’s the truth. The only way to contain costs is to pool everyone into a system that has incentives for cost control.
Doc #31
The federal government does nothing well that “evens out the costs”. I don’t want to destroy a health system that is working well for 9 out of 10 citizens, because the federal government will never be able to do this. This is a eutopic fairytale of socialism.
David (#32),
For my edification, how would cost control be effected on the tens of millions of illegal aliens? They don’t pay anything now for emergency care; wouldn’t costs skyrocket were they to have full health care coverage and not pay anything for it?
Pete,
An excellent column but, all in all, a wasted effort. Your satirical approach, which I found instantly apparent, framed the argument in much the same way as might have been done during the founding of our nation, before the line that protects free men from tyranny was so deviously blurred. Sadly, in the America in which we live today, brusk distinctions between liberty and servitude, freedom and circumscription, relief and the yoke are no longer possible for a people spellbound by a vision of human nature, and government, that do not now, nor have ever, existed.
In the past few decades we have heard much about:
The shame of this country’s millions of uninsured, as America’s leaders promoted policies that allowed tens of millions more uninsured enter into the nation
The value of home ownership, as our leaders promoted policies that brought immeasurable pain and financial ruin to millions of home buyers and the thousands of professionals who serve them
The need to expand the middle class, as this country’s leaders promoted policies that helped transform this once great producer of goods into a giant mall, populated by merchants and consumers, the former growing rich (and grateful to politicians) as the latter go bankrupt seeking salvation in gluttonous consumption.
This country, and the people who live in it, have a great many needs, almost none of them likely to be solved by government. The Social Security which everyone pays and upon which so many depend is funded by nothing but hope and promise—the money confiscated by “contribution” has all been spent. The infrastructure upon which our future depends has been at best hardly maintained, at worst completely ignored—the taxes and fees apparently went elsewhere. Our government is financing wars and buying corporations and paying its bills via a financial strategy based on borrowing, printing, and hoping. It confiscates our wealth and lies to us more regularly than it does anything else. It is, in this, like the black sheep uncle that haunts so many families, none of whom would be so reckless as to entrust in the scoundrel their money or risk, on his lies, their future well-being.
Obama’s health care reform effort, if successful, will accomplish its primary goal, that of getting him elected for another term. It is a perfect political package, as it promises to help everyone at no apparent real cost to anyone—at least no one that anybody cares about. And the best part of it is that we don’t have to do anything to believe in it—no weird philosophy to master, mythical god to worship, or pilgrimage to endure. All we have to do is trust the same government and media that assured us we’d find WMD’s in Iraq, Osama in Afghanistan, security in a 401k, and a peace dividend at the end of the Cold War.
33 – So your anti-government solution is to continue with a system that even in the best situations doesn’t work very well? Good plan.
Also, I don’t know where you came up with your “working well for 9 out of 10 citizens” (although I have a pretty good idea) but I would be quite surprised if you can back that up with any kind of independent facts. I think the truth is closer to they system works pretty good if until you get sick and then you are in deep trouble.
BTW, the “socialism” canard that you and others like to spread is very telling about your true beliefs of a civilized society taking care of each other.
Steve #31.
I’m glad it’s working well for you, but it is a utopian fallacy that it is working well for 9 out of 10. Even people with insurance are turned down for coverage all the time. Everyone has at one time or another fought for a claim. People who think they are insured are dropped without warning just when they need it most. And how about copays going up every week? Prescriptions now have $45 copays. Costs keep escalating. By no stretch of the imagination is the system “working.”
Even though Campbell calls it sarcasm there truth in what he says. Health care should also include promoting health and not simply a matter or curing sickness. The debate should eventually move beyond the health care industry per se to look at other government programs that directly or indirectly affects health.
For example, farm subsidies for corn make corn syrup extremely cheap, which in turn make soda pop, junk food and corn feed food very cheap. This junk makes people fat and gives them diabetes. It also makes organic food, with its small subsidies, seem expensive. Remove the gasoline subsidies as well. I am not speaking of the R&D tax breaks or royalty tax breaks that oil companies use, but the cost of fielding armies in the middle east and fleets in the oil ship lanes. Having consumers pay for the full price of gas should also have the same effect.
Schools use to have money for Physical Education and afterschool programs. Schools use to have nutrition programs to educate kids and parents. Many use to cook their own food, before outsourcing to corporations that pack food courts with pizza, burgers and tacos.
These are not coercive use of government power.
The true power of HR 3200 is not the the non-existent Death Panel, but the existing council of 27 experts The experts are suppose to be a cross section of stake holders (9 appointed by the president and not in the government, 9 from the CBO, 9 agency heads). They have the power to make yearly recommendation that Congress then must accept or reject en toto. That is where future policy gets decided.
#15: Lloyd, that’s a 10.
David and Doc,
I pay lots and lots of money for my medical insurance as do most of the hard working people I know, and to a person they do not want the government stepping in to “run things better”.
Maybe next we should buy car insurance for everyone too through the government…where do we draw the line??
There is nobody in this country insured or not who is refused medical care if they show up at the hospital.
If this were such a great medical plan then Obama would not put on phony question and answer sessions with a hand picked audience who ask him easy questions.
David and Doc, if you aren’t happy with your insurance, if you have any, they go out and work hard, shop around and buy it. I do not want to pay for your insurance too.
Pete,
I read your article before I left for work this morning and I didn’t have time to post a comment. But I thought to myself, “I know that Pete is being ironic here, but I’ve learned through bitter experience that this readership has no sense of irony, no sense of humor, and does not recognize satire. I wonder if they’ll think Pete is being serious.”
I come home from work and lo and behold, not a single commenter got it. (Even JMOC-to his perpetual discredit) All I can say is Pete, I feel your pain.
The Left already uses the “cost to society” argument to justify a number of laws (helmet laws & seatbelt laws to name a couple) governing personal safety (not PUBLIC safety). Imagine how empowered they’ll feel to govern every aspect of our behaviour if the cost of health care is to be paid for out of the public treasury.
Steve #22,
I think you’re selling yourself short, buddy.
From what I have been able to gather by reading your posts, I don’t believe you would ever deliberately put yourself in a position in which you were a burden to society.
Well, Pete, #12, it looks like everyone missed your “point”. John McE wrote good satire. Go take a class from him. You blew it.
#13 speaks of cost. When did government EVER deliver ANYTHING cheaper than the private sector could deliver the same thing?
#18—I agree with #16. If Congress passes any law, it must be that the entire US population here legally gets the same coverage as Congressmembers get.
Affordability is only one issue. I am 63. No health insurance company will insure me. I’m willing to pay, but they say no. I don’t want a plan with a low deductible and low co-payments. I want a plan that will take care of catastrophic care. I don’t go to doctors. All I need is insurance for the major issue.
HUAC changed its name to the House Inernal Security Committee. Acutally as an Air Force Lawyer, Chuck Reed was responsible for reporting commies in the Air Force. As far as declaring dissent, how do you claim open dissent with an anonymous name?
Let’s see…schools, Medicaid, Medicare, social security, DMV, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the quest for energy independence.
Yeah, the government is really good at running big programs…let’s give them another one or two.
Yesterday morning, at the corner of Alma and Monterey there were several hundred people milling around by Sacred Heart waiting for free book backpacks full of school supplies that were being given away. There were many young, able bodied men and women there with their kids, all of whom evidently see no problem spending their time standing around waiting for a handout rather than using that time to apply their God given gifts and doing something productive to EARN those school supplies for their children. They also evidently have no problem with teaching those children that it’s OK to rely on the charity of others for their needs.
There is absolutely no doubt that all these people, and millions more across the country, even if perfectly capable of providing for their own healthcare, would jump at the opportunity to simply have it given to them were it offered.
Past generations have bequeathed to us a country that is unbelievably rich with opportunity. It is an insult to our forbears, and an indication of just how spoiled we’ve become, for us to suggest that there does not exist here the means for every American to carve out for himself a life that is rich physically, financially, and spiritually.
To allow that version of America to be superceded by one in which people envision their lives to be determined not by their own skill, hard work, and ingenuity but instead by the whim of a remote bureaucracy, would be one of the great tragedies of human history.
#33 Steve says: “I don’t want to destroy a health system that is working well for 9 out of 10 citizens…”
Even if we accept your 9 out of 10, which is questionable at best, wouldn’t 10 out of 10 be better? Are you seriously saying that there is no room for improvement?
I also question the 9 in 10 that you cite as being in a system that is “working well.” Have you ever had to fight your insurance company? Have you, or anyone you know, ever been denied coverage? Have they ever had their insurance carrier try to weasel out of paying a valid claim? It’s fairly common. Yet it’s the insurance industry, and the predictable Palinesque anti-anything-Obama tea bag brigade, who are opposing health care reform.
#35 Finfan says: “All we have to do is trust the same government and media that assured us we’d find WMD’s in Iraq, Osama in Afghanistan, security in a 401k, and a peace dividend at the end of the Cold War.”
Nah, we kicked him out last November. There’s a new guy in charge. He promised health care reform and the majority voted for him.
Reasonable people can disagree. There is much to discuss in the various proposals and some obvious weaknesses in some of the plans. But I am disgusted by the attempts to shout down supporters, talk radio’s outright falsehood of “death panels” and other patent dishonesty being tossed around. I am equally disgusted by the smirking liberals on MSNBC who belittle anyone who raises questions about health care reform.
This topic is too important to our future to leave it in the hands of political spinmasters on the right or left. What’s needed is an honest, politically independent and rational discussion that examines all possible solutions, including Steve’s (#33) option of doing nothing because he thinks the current system works well.
Prevention is important, so I’m going out for a walk. Bye.
Laugh all you want at Pete, this is the PRECISE reason I am against a single national option.
Walk into any Denny’s, tell me what you see, and then tell me with a straight face that you want to see your tax dollars being used to fix what people are doing to themselves voluntarily.
Now having TWO OR MORE public options, with different treatment and costs, is different. Incentive to take care of yourself and get into the better one.
39 – Wow, are you missing the point. Good luck if you ever get sick.
Steve,
For the record, I am perfectly happy with my insurance, except for the fact that costs are escalating every year, way above the rate of inflation. I only have good insurance because I have a responsible employer that provides good benefits. But again, I also care about the millions that don’t have it/can’t afford it. It’s not just about me. And it is much more expensive (and we pay) and results in poorer outcomes when people are treated in emergency rooms. Instead, they should be provided with preventive care, which they do not have access to now.
The scare tactics notwithstanding, there is no plan for government to “take over” your health care. They want to make the system more effective and efficient by providing a framework for improving the system. And anyone who is happy with their current insurance will be free to keep it. There is no plan to take that away from you. (Of course, I believe that once people see the alternative, they will realize that what they currently have isn’t all that great, but individuals will be able to decide that for themselves.)
Another thing – everyone here decries the runaway employee costs in the public sector. Well, a large part of that is the out-of-control escalation of the cost of health care provided to public employees. And speak with small business owners. The ones I know can’t stand the high cost of their health care obligation and know that something has to be done.
By the way, there is already more regulation of the auto insurance industry than there is health insurance. We even elect an Insurance Commissioner in California that oversees the market for that insurance.
I realize a lot of the posters here don’t like to bogged down with facts, but the following puts the smackdown to much of the misinformation being circulated on this and other blogs:
Top Five Health Care Reform Lies
Lie #1: President Obama wants to euthanize your grandma!!!
The truth: These accusations—of “death panels” and forced euthanasia—are, of course, flatly untrue. As an article from the Associated Press puts it: “No ‘death panel’ in health care bill.“1 What’s the real deal? Reform legislation includes a provision, supported by the AARP, to offer senior citizens access to a professional medical counselor who will provide them with information on preparing a living will and other issues facing older Americans.2
If you’d like to read the actual section of the legislation that spawned these outrageous claims (Section 1233 of H.R. 3200) for yourself, here it is. It’s pretty boring stuff, which is why the accusations that it creates “death panels” is so absurd. But don’t take our word for it, read it yourself.
Lie #2: Democrats are going to outlaw private insurance and force you into a government plan!!!
The truth: With reform, choices will increase, not decrease. Obama’s reform plans will create a health insurance exchange, a one-stop shopping marketplace for affordable, high-quality insurance options.3 Included in the exchange is the public health insurance option—a nationwide plan with a broad network of providers—that will operate alongside private insurance companies, injecting competition into the market to drive quality up and costs down.4 If you’re happy with your coverage and doctors, you can keep them.5 But the new public plan will expand choices to millions of businesses or individuals who choose to opt into it, including many who simply can’t afford health care now.
Lie #3: President Obama wants to implement Soviet-style rationing!!!
The truth: Health care reform will expand access to high-quality health insurance, and give individuals, families, and businesses more choices for coverage. Right now, big corporations decide whether to give you coverage, what doctors you get to see, and whether a particular procedure or medicine is covered—that is rationed care. And a big part of reform is to stop that.
Health care reform will do away with some of the most nefarious aspects of this rationing: discrimination for pre-existing conditions, insurers that cancel coverage when you get sick, gender discrimination, and lifetime and yearly limits on coverage.6 And outside of that, as noted above, reform will increase insurance options, not force anyone into a rationed situation.
Lie #4: Obama is secretly plotting to cut senior citizens’ Medicare benefits!!!
The truth: Health care reform plans will not reduce Medicare benefits.7 Reform includes savings from Medicare that are unrelated to patient care—in fact, the savings comes from cutting billions of dollars in overpayments to insurance companies and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.8
Lie #5: Obama’s health care plan will bankrupt America!!!
The truth: We need health care reform now in order to prevent bankruptcy—to control spiraling costs that affect individuals, families, small businesses, and the American economy. Right now, we spend more than $2 trillion dollars a year on health care.9 The average family premium is projected to rise to over $22,000 in the next decade10—and each year, nearly a million people face bankruptcy because of medical expenses.11 Reform, with an affordable, high-quality public option that can spur competition, is necessary to bring down skyrocketing costs. Also, President Obama’s reform plans would be fully paid for over 10 years and not add a penny to the deficit.12
Sources:
1. “No ‘death panel’ in health care bill,” Associated Press, August 10, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51747
2. “Stop Distorting the Truth about End of Life Care,” Huffington Post, July 24, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51730
3. “Reality Check FAQs,” WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 11, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#i1
4. “Why We Need a Public Health-Care Plan,” Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51737
5. “Obama: ‘If You Like Your Doctor, You Can Keep Your Doctor,’” Wall Street Journal, 15, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51736
6. “Reality Check FAQs,” WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 10, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#r1
7. “Obama: No reduced Medicare benefits in health care reform,” CNN, July 28, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51748
8. “Reality Check FAQs,” WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 10, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#s1
9. “Reality Check FAQs,” WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 10, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#c1
10. “Premiums Run Amok,” Center for American Progress, July 24, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51667
11. “Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies,” CNN, June 5, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51735
12. “Reality Check FAQs,” WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 10, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#c1
Sources for the Five Lies:
#1: “A euthanasia mandate,” The Washington Times, July 29, 2009.
#2: “It’s Not An Option,” Investor’s Business Daily, July 15, 2009.
#3: “Rationing Health Care,” The Washington Times, April 21, 2009.
#4: “60 Plus Ad Is Chock Full Of Misinformation,” Media Matters for America, August 8, 2009.
#5: “Obama’s ‘Public’ Health Plan Will Bankrupt the Nation,” The National Review, May 13, 2009.
A touching argument for the need for end-of-life counseling. Let the “death panel” morons try to spin their lies about this:
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_13132651
Reader (#43),
You must find great comfort in your delusions, so you may want to stop reading right here.
Nothing changed in November, the same folks who supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are still running Congress, and, in case you missed it, Obama is escalating the war in Afghanistan (being waged for what, I don’t know). As for the meltdown in the stock market, though there might be an individual politician or two (Ron Paul comes to mind) who argued against the reckless lending policies that crashed the economy, those policies were, in various ways, the work of both parties. The peace dividend was squandered in Iraq and Bosnia and elsewhere, long before the reign of Bush the Dull, much to the cheers of both parties, as they felt their pockets padded by grateful Zionists, industrious defense contractors, and salivating oil men.
Getting rid of George Bush may have brought you a level of joy, but insofar as the who’s who that is running this country, nothing has changed, nor will it, even should Obama successfully serve up for us another federal program that is certain to disappoint.
#48 finfan: And I am sorry to offend YOUR delusions, but if you recall the events of 9/11/2001 you might understand why we are in Afghanistan! You might also note that the balance of power has shifted in Congress, along with the new executive branch. But other than that you’re right, things haven’t changed much.
So Ray Alitee cites movealong.org and whitehouse.gov as justification for the budget-busting health care mess coming soon to a hospital near you. Sorry, but these are hardly impartial sources but rather noted propaganda mills. As for the Deborah Petersen editorial, it misses the point; in her case, her mother decided to die. That’s a personal family matter that no doctor or government bureaucrat should interfere with. But the same doctor or government bureaucrat should not stand in the way of someone who wants to live, either.
50 – Take another look. There are several other sources listed besides the ones you mention.
As for the Petersen item, she indicated her mother might have made a different decision if there had been appropriate end-of-life counseling. As a nation we do a disservice to those of any age who are facing terminal illnesses. Why you and others would deny dying patients the opportunity to get as much information as possible about what options they have from their health care providers is beyond me. I hope you never have to deal with this—I already have and it would have been wonderful to have had resources available to assist in the decision making process.
#51-Just Noticing,
Very, very well said. I’m deeply sorry for your loss.
I agree fear driven decisions are the worst ones that can be made. The consequences of said decisions at times like these are life altering. Education and choice is the best weapon against fear.
Too many times doctors treat the disease and not the entire patient. Going through a terminal illness is devastating not just to the patient, but to family and friends as well. I just lost a beautiful friend to cancer, and let me tell you that no one should have to fight for medical treatment, or go through the physical pain she did, nor the emotional strain her husband did.
Preventive care, and pain management is also another vital component needed in our health care system.
John Galt,
The mechanism that will allow Kaiser to lower costs despite absorbing new patients with costly preexisting conditions is the same mechanism that makes it fiscally possible for America to educate, assist, and doctor an infinite number of illegal aliens.
This remarkable mechanism, which is not understood by economists, mathematicians, or anyone who has ever confused Al Gore with a box of Velveeta, has gained wide acceptance among believers as being political in nature, despite its having all the earmarks, as do all progressive schemes, of the supernatural.
#53 and #54. We pay for their treatment anyway when they go to the emergency room and have no coverage. Who do you think the hospital charges in order to recover all the unpaid bills? It is cheaper to pay for treatment earlier than wait until a crisis. But it is clear there is no convincing you, since you are always opposed to helping those less fortunate than yourselves get the care they need.
This is why pre-existing conditions need to be separated from the insurance debate.
Pre-existing conditions have nothing to do with insurance, its welfare.
If we want to debate welfare for certain people, fine. If we want to explore why certain people don’t have insurance, fine.
But welfare is not insurance. Insurance is pooling risk for a potential disaster.
I have had Kaiser for years and that system works very well. There is an emphasis on prevention and wellness. Unfortunately, doctors in private practice make money off of procedures done, not prevention. If there is something to be changed, I would like to see the insurance companies put more emphasis on prevention rather than the much more expensive cure. Also, there needs to be tort reform to cut the greedy lawyers from the frivolous lawsuits driving up our premiums. I also think we need to have some safety net for those with pre-existing conditions who are hard working folks who have lost their jobs and health insurance. Any of us could be in that boat.
#55,
OK then. If I can’t be turned down because of a pre-existing medical condition then why don’t I just drop my coverage until I happen to get sick or hurt, THEN renew my policy.
I’m sure the rest of the members who continue to faithfully make their payments won’t think that’s unfair.
And if they do, screw ‘em. I’M the poor, unfortunate one now!
#55, I agree with you that if illegal aliens need health care, they should get it. But the associated cost is a symptom of our health care problems, not a cause. We should be addressing the root causes, of which illegal aliens are a part, as are unhealthy eating habits, smoking, alcohol consumption, lack of exercise, etc, etc, etc.
Tightening up the borders, whether via physical or economic means, would help reduce that part of the strain on the trajectory of health care costs.
Circles (#55),
I suspect if our hospitals were really able to, as you suggest, “recover all the unpaid bills” that San Jose Hospital might still be open. The current disaster, brought on in large part because we’ve allowed illegal aliens to come in and steal services, including hospital emergency and operating room services, should not be viewed as natural or inevitable for the simple reason that we got along pretty well in this country for decades without socialized medicine. Hospital ERs haven’t always been SRO. I can’t imagine the fiscal tsunami that will follow should every illegal be granted the right to treatment on demand.
Clearly you believe that access to state of the art medical treatment is a right. I don’t, for the same reason that I don’t believe that it is the government’s duty to feed or shelter us, that being that such practices work to actualize the worst inclinations of human nature. Just as the basic life skills of a park bear are harmed when it accustoms itself to raiding campsites, so too are the basic life skills of humans damaged when they grow dependent upon the government. It is no coincidence that in the forty years since the Great Society laid ruin to the core values of huge numbers of African-Americans that it is the erosion of self-respect, parental responsibility, spirituality, and community pride that is so often cited as the cause of the failure and pain in those communities. Helping the less fortunate didn’t help them at all.
One of the great problems in public service today is due to the exploitation of basic benefits by employees of low character. Disability protection, the good faith promise made to those who put their health at risk in service to their communities, is so frequently abused that many experts consider the majority of cases to be fraudulent. The opportunity to do nothing but collect a paycheck, or retire early, appeals only the worst of employees, but that “worst” in a large organization constitutes a significant enough number of people and dollars to put the protection itself at risk. Crackdowns on disability fraud aren’t necessary because disability protection is a bad idea, they’re necessary because there are lazy schemers in every population.
It is obvious that tens of millions of Americans believe in taking care of people less fortunate than themselves, so I suggest an easy solution: make two lists, the first containing everyone who would like to receive government-issued health care, the second everyone who would like to pay for it, then administer the benefit to the first group and tax the second for the cost. That will leave the rest of us free to invest our funds in capitalism (that thing that creates jobs, tax revenue, etc.), buy some catastrophic illness protection, dish out our charity according to our own values, and maybe put a little bit away for the day when social security collapses.
I’m not happy that my Kaiser premiums continue to escalate either but somebody please explain to me how being required to accept applicants with pre-existing medical conditions will lower Kaiser’s average per-member cost that is reflected in my premiums.
If it’s such a great idea for insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions then why don’t we extend that idea to other types of insurance?
People could get homeowner insurance AFTER their house burns down.
They could wait until AFTER an accident before purchasing auto coverage.
61 – I’m sure some of our regulars here will tell you those doctors who are committing fraud are also illegal aliens.
One very important component that drives costs sky high is fraud by the medical profession. Doctors and clinics have been caught over charging Medi-Cal and MEDICARE MILLIONS of dollars. It is disgusting that so called professionals who are sworn to “Do No Harm,” can rip off honest hard working people. (Not everyone on Medi-Cal is unemployed or on Welfare folks.) When Obama and Congress addresses this kind of fraud then I’ll be more willing to listen to their ideas on health care reform.
#16—Congress will never allow the hoi polloi to have its health insurance program; just as it does not allow us to have its retirement program. We’re stuck with Social Security. They have lifetime medical free after just one term in office, and their salary for life, as well.
Hey, I’ve got an idea!!!!. Let’s all run for Congress. We can’t do any worse than they are doing/have done, right?
#25 “Not a single commentor got it” What does that say about the quality of the work, John Galt?
#25 wrote about “behaviour”. So, is he British, or just pretending to be?
#60: There you have it. The right-wing ideology in a nutshell. Something bad couldn’t possibly happen to you. What if your insurance were cancelled by an insurance company during an illness because they determine you were too high of a risk? I guess that would make you one of those “low character” folks.
#59—illegal aliens should get their health care from their country of origin, not on our dime.
Kathleen #61- Of course, if we just provided Medicare for All, through one single payer, then there wouldn’t be a distinction between fraudulent and honest people seeking medical care. But that would be too simple.
Interesting approach, blaming doctors for high medical costs. The doctors I know, including members of my family, fight just to get the money they are owed from insurance companies and are nickled-and-dimed all the time by the for-profit insurance industry. Why is it not the $20 million salaries of their CEOs that are the cause of our high costs?
“Interesting approach, blaming doctors for high medical costs.” Give me a break. I never said ALL doctors, hospitals, or medical care providers commit fraud. How do you come up with that broad, half-baked statement? Go Google the BILLIONS of dollars lost to fraud by medical providers and then come back and talk from an educated point of view will you? Geech.
Give me a break. There is always going to be fraud, but the discussion here is whether health care reform is needed to bring costs under control. Your comment – “very important component that drives costs sky high is fraud by the medical profession” – implies that fraud by doctors is an important component. I submit that while there are real examples of fraud that the real cause of surging costs is the for-profit insurance industry (with incredibly high overhead) and the high number of uninsured.
And read what I said. Doctors (including members of my family) are more likely to be nickled-and-dimed by insurance companies than they are to commit fraud and cost the system money.
The problem with having these discussions with you is how you attack those who disagree with you with comments like “then come back and talk from an educated point of view.” We can disagree on these things, but to imply that we are uneducated adds no value to the debate.
I did not attack you. I asked you to give me a break, and Google the affects on fraud by medical providers, since your post disputes that is even a factor to be considered in this discussion. I also asked how you could take my statement and minimize it the way you did. You are the one that said “Interesting approach, blaming doctors for high medical costs.’ I never said any such thing.
You took my comment asking you to look it up, as a personal insult. It wasn’t meant that way. I have read and seen report after report on how medical caregivers have ripped of Medi-Cal and Medicare for billions of dollars. Those two programs aren’t being over seen the way they should be and because they aren’t, decent doctors and medical care providers get shortchanged. Illegals use fake social security numbers, and they also allow others to use their Medi-Cal and Medicare. Guess who pays the price?
It has gotten so bad that providers are now requiring photo ID during visits to the doctor/hospitals/clinics. Those costs are being passed on to tax payers too. It is an endless nightmare of fraud and corruption everywhere you turn. So what does our new President do, he decides we need national health care. That just doesn’t cut it for me.
Having said that, unfortunately you cannot segregate this issue into just national health care. Before any such discussion or resolution to the problem can truly be had, the problems that haven’t been addressed honestly by our leaders makes this kind of national change ridiculous. Insurers screw people/doctors/hospitals, doctors and hospitals over charge us to make up for the uninsured and HIGH salaries, drug companies take us to the cleaners, on and on. The whole thing is out of control.
I do not think that national health care is going to work here, any more than the status quo will. Every citizen should have affordable health care that THEY pay for, or contribute to some how. No one should have to go without health care, and no one group should have to hold the bag for the cost either, but that is exactly what is happening.
This should be a good start to begin to understand the “one very important component” I was referring to.
http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/west/2009/03/20/98936.htm
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/07/local/me-skidrow7
http://greenandassociates.blogspot.com/2009/02/medicare-fraud-medi-cal-fraud-and.html
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/AILING+FOREIGNERS+A+PAIN+FOR+COUNTY+:+ASSEMBLY+PANEL+TOLD+OF+MEDICAL…-a083953830
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/hospital-medical-record-2169907-patient-medicare
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111967435
http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/view/70761
So what’s your suggestion, Kathleen? You say that national health care isn’t going to work but the status quo is no good. Everyone should have health care, but the federal government isn’t responsible for ensuring that. How do we make sure everyone, even those who can’t afford health care under the current cost structure, are covered?
Good question! If I was being paid over $350K per year, plus benefits to sit down and go through all aspects of what needs to be done to reduce costs, provide affordable care, and fairly distribute costs I’d have answer for you. I just know that we can’t keep doing what we’re doing now. If you take all the concerns everyone has mentioned on here and look at what hasn’t been addressed, you’ll see the enormity of the problem the President, and our country is facing in trying to tackle this very real problem.
Yet you already know that the solutions being proposed in Congress are wrong and you oppose them. We need to address the many problems and while not all of them will be fixed the first time through, waiting for a perfect bill or doing nothing are two things that are not acceptable. We agree that something needs to be done, so let’s try the President’s plan. If it doesn’t work, at least everyone will know who to blame. It will be easy. Republicans are against it, so Democrats are completely accountable on this one.
Looks like we finally agree on something!
Since no one will be forced to give up what they have now, and if they come up with something that might work, I could give it a go. I’m waiting to see what comes out of Congress before I scream the sky is falling.
63 – Once again the postings from so many on this site bear no resemblance to reality. You really should leave the fabrications to some of your favorite Fox “journalists”—after all they claim to be professionals.
Anyway, Members of Congress have been required to pay into Social Security since 1983. They are also in one of two pension plans, the same ones that are offered to rank and file Federal employees. With service of 20 – 25 years they could retire with 80% of their salary (almost as good as being an SJ police officer). I find nothing about free medical care for life after 2 years. Since you stated this as fact would you please provide the cite for this information?
One part missing is that the US now subsidizes a lot of the worldwide cost of medical research. Other countries, like Canada, negotiate lower prescription drug prices.
If we did the same, two things would happen. Our costs would be lower, but there would be less money to reward makers of new drugs, and thus less money spent to create new drugs.
Part of the discussion should be negotiation with Europe about reasonable drug pricing, so that the cost of drug research is shared more evenly.
(I’m talking about the new drugs, not drug companies re-releasing old drugs with a slight change so they can get a second set of patents.)
Circles (#66),
You got me. I failed to realize that the only sure-fire protection a patient can have is to have coverage under a government health care plan. Certainly our government would never consider denying a patient surgery because of cost… like they are today doing in Canada.
http://www.examiner.com/x-17336-Midland-County-Public-Policy-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Thousands-of-surgeries-to-be-cut-in-Canada
You seem to think that the same government that can’t keep up the maintenance on our highways, bridges, and flood control systems is going to do better keeping up the maintenance on you and your loved ones. Good luck with that.
By the way, just because I have it right does not make it right-wing.
JMOC #64 & 65,
All I’m saying, old chap, is that anybody who’d been paying attention would know that Pete is pretty conservative. And anyone who knows anything at all about conservatism would know that a conservative would never be making those suggestions in earnest.
Pete’s article was excellent.
Cheerio!
The Left has long insisted that we need a national discussion on health care. Now, when we do try to discuss it with them they turn around in the middle of the discussion and walk away!
Doc, David, Ray Alitee, Around In Circles- where’d you go? It’s your side that came to us with your demands. The onus is on you to prove your case. In order to do that, you’ll have to listen to, and address the concerns of others.
You’ve made it clear that you believe you have a corner on the compassion market. You come into the discussion with the idea that anybody who disagrees with you must be a selfish, ignorant, meanspirited, greedy bastard. Perhaps you should consider that this initial assumption of yours might be wrong. Believe it or not, your opponents also understand that there is a certain obligation for a society to help the truly needy.
Where we disagree, and what you refuse to discuss or even to acknowledge, is that in our endeavour to provide for the truly needy, it is important that we don’t encourage and reward people to pretend to be truly needy.
And where has anyone advocated encouraging and rewarding people “to pretend to be truly needy?” Or, to put it another way, what are you talking about?
I stood behind a guy at the grocery check-out line a while back who was pretending to be truly needy. he had the thickest gold chain you ever saw that was not on a rapper, that had a huge gold fish hook on it. he wore a silk shirt and trousers that looked like they came out of Barcelino or Eli Thomas. he paid for his groceries with food stamps. The checker just rolled her eyes. I’m sure he’s not the only person out there pretending to be truly needy.
Kind of like the people on this site who pretend to be truly informed?
Where has anyone advocated encouraging and rewarding people to pretend to be truly needy? What am I talking about?
Well, if you make it illegal for insurance companies- INSURANCE companies, to deny coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition, then you will encourage and reward people who figure out that they’d be stupid to keep paying for insurance since they’ll be allowed to purchase coverage if they happen to get sick.
Just think it through. That’s all you have to do, Just Wondering. STOP wondering and THINK!
To that well stated position I would add that we also need to find real solutions for reducing health care costs. Sweeping generalizations like “the massive buying power of the government” are not adequate. Government pays over 40% of today’s health care $$$, yet they are still rising at an “unsustainable” rate. Making people have more “skin in the game” is probably a better solution than “big brother” medical panels.
“endeavour”, eh? Definitely a Brit.
We’re here, but the truth is that our views are diametrically opposed. A majority believe that health care in America is in a crisis state and we need to do something about it. Turns out the Republicans in Congress actually just want to confuse people so much that nothing passes because the status quo is their goal. If that’s the case, there won’t be common ground reached, no matter how much we communicate. Most of the opposing comments are scare tactics and falsehoods (death panels, rationed care, government takeover, increased taxes). There are reasonable discussions to be had on how the plan will be structured and paid for, but that can only occur when a basic agreement is reached that access to health care must increase and costs must be contained. Without that, continuing the conversation just results in going “around in circles.”
I believe, as do many, that the only way to contain costs and guarantee coverage for all is to offer a public option as one on a menu of choices. The knee-jerk “anything the government does is bad” crowd won’t ever accept that. Why, I don’t know. They accept the military, NASA, national labs, VA, medicare, highways, police, public schools (well they don’t all appreciate public schools), post office, etc.
You state that death panels, rationed care, government takeover, and increased taxes are “scare tactics and falsehoods”. I’ve heard this quite a bit lately and the rationale for that claim seems to be the fact that none of these things are written into the language of the bill. None of the opponents, myself and Sarah Palin included, believe that any of these things are in the bill. However, when we think ahead and imagine the provisions of the bill enacted and we logically think through the resultant consequences in our society, we are concerned that many of these “falsehoods”, though unintended, may be the inevitable result. Did Barney Frank logically think through the consequences of using government programs to get people into homes they otherwise could not afford? His stated intentions were good. Was there any language in Fannie Mae and Freddie Macs’ charters that stated an intention to fuel a real estate bubble that would come close to bankrupting the nation? Of course not. But that was the unintended result.
Maybe this is a chicken and egg thing AIC, but the knee-jerk “anything the government is bad” crowd is a vital balance to the knee-jerk “I see a problem and the only answer is a massive new government program” crowd.
John,
Have you read the final draft of these health care reform proposals? Has anyone? No! Why? Because it hasn’t even been put together, voted on, or happened yet. Why is everyone screaming the sky is falling before we know what is even being proposed?
And yes, there is way too much misinformation floating around by fearful people who are panicked by what they “think” might happen. It is really sad to see how people are behaving about this. Sorry to say this but, I think if we had a white President suggesting health care reform there wouldn’t be quite the uproar about this as there is now. I think many are judging this issue based on Obama as a person of African American decent, and not on the issue he is proposing. I thought we’d come a lot further in 2009 than we actually have.
Kathleen, I wouldn’t attribute it to racism. People are genuinely concerned about what government intervention might do to their health care.
The same thing happened with the Clintons plan for health care reform in 1993. The Wikipedia summary notes the heavy opposition to the plan by “conservatives, libertarians and the health insurance industry,” and that “Democrats, instead of uniting behind the President’s original proposal, offered a number of competing plans of their own.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993).
Please credit the people doing all the “screaming” with a modicum of intelligence. It’s unbecoming of your usually well thought out positions to stoop to claims of racism.
It is difficult to give the screamers credit for having a “modicum of intelligence” given the nonsense they are spewing forth. You know what they are saying and you know how much of it is pure fabrication. If they really wanted to have a serious discussion about health care then they would start by having a factual argument. They don’t, they can’t, they don’t want to. They don’t want to be confused with facts.
From reports in a variety of media (I don’t rely on any one source for my information) the loudest of this group is clueless (“give me my country back”, “death panels”, “health care would be free for illegal aliens”, etc.) Pretty tough to give these folks any credit for a “modicum of intelligence.”
What, exactly, are the facts? There’s 1/2 a dozen or so proposals floating around congress, so it’s quite possible to include or exclude just about anything for the program.
Virtually everybody (myself included) agrees that there are a significant amount of uninsured people out there who should be helped. But people can’t even agree on how many uninsured folks we’re talking about. It was 35-40 million for a while, now some are claiming 50 million or more.
I would be grateful to anybody who can help me understand what the facts actually are.
Pat,
Nobody can rely completely on being certain about the “facts” in determining their position on this matter. Everybody has access to the same “facts”. As is always the case in controversial matters, it becomes a matter of judgement- What do we DO with these “facts”?
The Left would have us believe that there exist a set of “facts” that must righteously guide our actions in a particular direction. “Here are the FACTS”, they say. “We MUST do THIS.”
This is delusive nonsense.
We Americans are NOT puppets who must react compulsively to the pull of some remote, agenda-driven marionette.
We’re Americans. We have freedom of choice.
And By God there IS a choice.
If the Left doesn’t want to listen- if they think so little of us that they can’t get past the idea that our objections are based on nothing but hate, greed, and RACISM, then I guess there’s nothing we can say to them.
Around In Circles- You’ve got it easy.
I’m up against a Brick Wall.
John,
I agree that we should have choice. No one should force anything on us that we don’t want. Having said that to say we have the “facts” on this or any issue is far from true. As Fin Fan so aptly explained it on rants and raves we rarely ever get the facts. We get a lot of distorted biased information written or reported by idiots dressed in journalists clothing, or the issue proposed is presented is so dam vague you don’t know which way to go. I don’t know about you but I find it completely frustrating when I’m trying to figure out how to vote on something because the facts are rarely available.
I’m with you John, up against a brick wall. Many of you on this blog have helped me understand issues far better than I would have without you! Your debates on topics bring me some kind of clarity. So thanks very much for that.
Um, Kathleen, it’s scary to think that anybody would rely on the commenters on this blog for facts. Be very careful with the spin you read here.
Whenever someone has an honest disagreement with someone with different skin color, somehow the dissenter is “racist.” This eliminates any need to rationally consider the alternate point of view. There was lots of resistance to a former president’s white wife’s health care plan back in the 1990s. No one cried “racist” then. Those of us opposed to ObamaCare object on the merits, not on the race of the president. For one thing, the CBO admitted ObamaCare is a budget buster. After all of the bailouts, porkulus, cap-n-tax and other budget-busting flim flam from this government, it’s time to say “enough!”
Hugh, I believe you, but what you are saying does not apply to the things being said at some of the town halls. Things like “we want our country back” and “this isn’t the America we know” are veiled expressions of discomfort with the current leadership that are based on fear of change represented by a black president. To say nothing of the “birthers.”
Did the wasted billions we have poured into Iraq bother you as a budget buster? We’d certainly get a whole lot more for our money if we had a decent health care plan and I’d much rather see it go to taking care of our health needs here.
I guess one person’s “budget buster” is another person’s worthwhile program. Funny how that works, huh?
Pat,
I think Doubtful pretty much summed it up for me. (Thank you Doubtful!)
Having said that, to be in denial and to say that some of this public reaction has nothing to do with Obama’s race is just plain silly. The Clintons didn’t go through anything like this spectacle. No one toted a gun to a town hall meeting, nor did they scream, and carry posters of Clinton comparing him to Hitler either. I work in social justice and I’ll tell you here and now racism is alive and well in the US, including reverse discrimination.
There is a very serious effort going on to sabotage, frighten, and create misinformation on this issue of health care reform. Insurance companies, and big business are setting us up to believe that the status quo is the only way to go, so they continue business as usual. If you can’t see that Pat, well I just feel sorry for you.