Healthcare Nut Cases
Anybody who reads this blog know what I think of the tactics of the latter-day American right — the quasi-Leninist tactic of throwing rhetorical bombs into crowded rooms so that the ensuing chaos and confusion will muddle the issue at hand, and, in doing so, could well derail any attempt to implement the kinds of policies that might support the common good but go against Republican liberal orthodoxy. It’s the “total war” politics of destruction, and truth is the first casualty. Indeed, truth is malleable and relative. How modern! (And yet they think they are conservative!) And no more is this the case than with the healthcare debate. As I’ve noted before, what is in fact a rather modest and incremental proposed change has been transmogrified into “socialism” and specters of the government drawing up lists of people to be killed. I find it very sad that Catholic bloggers and others in the public square are jumping on this bandwagon, crying socialism, making up stories of euthanasia, and treating the insurance coverage of abortion as the only worthwhile topic of discussion.
Remember the stakes. They are worth repeating and re-repeating. It is a scandal that 47 million are uninsured and a further 25 million are underinsured. It is a scandal that medical costs are probably the leading cost of bankruptcy in the United States. It is a scandal that the poor end up in emergency rooms, where the treatment they get is too little and too late, because they have no access to affordable primary care. It is a scandal that insurance companies prey on suffering by refusing coverage, dropping coverage, and denying claims — something that again disproportionately affects the poor. In short, the status quo is a gross violation of the basic principles of Catholic social teaching.
But this is all forgotten. The proposals are not being debated on their merits. The rhetorically violent tactics of the right seem to be detracting from the big picture. Eduardo Penalver does a nice job bringing together some of the sheer silliness of what passes for argument among the forces of the right:
“There’s a lot to be puzzled about in the “debate” (I hesitate to dignify it with that term) over health care reform: Palin’s exploitation of her infant son with her instantly infamous “death panel” comment; the anti-reform protester who was supposedly injured in a scuffle with SEIU members who is taking up a collection to pay his medical bills because he (wait for it) recently lost his job and is uninsured; the anti-reform protester at a townhall meeting in South Carolina who told his conservative congressman to “keep your government hands off my Medicare.” But I think this line from an Investors Business Daily editorial in opposition to health care reform may win the prize: People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless. Can a democracy function at this level of discourse? The mind reels.”
Of course, Stephen Hawking is a good example of the British “socialist” healthcare system in action. There are many other examples. As recounted by a friend, the UK health system literally saved the life of one of Elizabeth Anscombe’s children who suffered a stroke at a tragically young age. The American doctors wanted to pull the plug, but her mother took her home to the UK, where she still lives. Of course, nobody is proposing anything close to the UK system, which anyway is single provider, not single payer. They are not even proposing single payer. What is on offer is a largely private system with checks and balances, and a very limited public option. Some socialism.
Let me address the Palin point. While intelligence is not her strong point, I still cannot believe Palin actually believes what she said. Yet again, she is exploiting both the Christian faith and her own children to further her own political ends — which in this case includes the derailing of healthcare reform. She is the epitome of everything that is corrupt and scandalous about the so-called religious right. But here’s the ironic part: in the current environment, it is very difficult for people with Down’s syndrome to attain adequate healthcare. Why? Because it is considered a pre-existing condition and so insurance companies don’t want to touch it. As the National Down Syndrome Congress writes bluntly: “People with Down syndrome have been and continue to be discriminated against with regard to access to health insurance, solely on the basis of the diagnosis of Down syndrome and without consideration of their individual health status or health histories.” One would think that a genuine pro-lifer, one who wanted to do something about the shockingly-high tendency to abort Down’s syndrome babies, would at the very least support universal healthcare reform that stops insurance companies from doing what they are doing. But that’s not the Palin we know.
It seems that many of the nosiest people who oppose this reform are precisely those who would benefit from it. Which brings me to Eduardo’s last point about democracy. I have been thinking about this myself a lot recently. Never have I been more disenchanted with modern liberal democracy than I am today. It strikes me as untenable. Then again, perhaps I need to take the longer view. While these know-nothings are louder than ever before, thanks to modern communications, there is nothing new about them. One of Andrew Sullivan’s commentor put it so very well:
“They have always been with us, the people who believed in manifest destiny, who delighted in the slaughter of this land’s original inhabitants, who cheered a nation into a civil war to support an economic system of slavery that didn’t even benefit them. They are the people who bashed the unions and cheered on the anti-sedition laws, who joined the Pinkertons and the No Nothing Party, who beat up Catholic immigrants and occasionally torched the black part of town. They rode through the Southern pine forests at night, they banned non-European immigration, they burned John Rockefeller Jr. in effigy for proposing the Grand Tetons National Park.
These are the folks who drove Teddy Roosevelt out of the Republican Party and called his cousin Franklin a communist, shut their town’s borders to the Okies and played the protectionist card right up til Pearl Harbor, when they suddenly had a new foreign enemy to hate. They are with us, the John Birchers, the anti-flouride and black helicopter nuts, the squirrly commie-hating hysterics who always loved the loyalty oath, the forced confession, the auto-de-fe. Those who await with baited breath the race war, the nuclear holocaust, the cultural jihad, the second coming, they make up much more of America then you would care to think.”
Let’s hope sanity prevails.
Comments are closed.
The spectre of McCarthy continues to rule over so many….
If the complaint is a lack of reasoned discussion over the proposed government reform of health care, then does it serve truth to lump all those in opposition into the category of thoughtless demagogues?
“does it serve truth to lump all those in opposition into the category of thoughtless demagogues?”
Absolutely. Yes it does.
Thoughtless demagogues constitute the Republican opposition. You imply it doesn’t? Well then, I ask: Where is sane Republican leadership?
Where is Dick Armey — former Majority Leader of the House? He has put together the “instructions” on how to disrupt discourse. Where Sen. Mitch McConnell or John Boehner? They are urging the rabble onward. They are using them as an instrument for crass political gain. They want to gain through someone else’s loss.
If the Republicans sincerely want to engage in a “sane” dialogue, they would have a proposal from which to debate. But where is the Republican health care proposal? The short answer is: There is none. Nor has there been a Republican health care proposal for over three decades.
Yes, the Republican opposition IS a collection of mindless demagogues.
“The spectre of McCarthy continues to rule over so many”
Henry who are referring to too those that oppose certain elements of the Healthh Care Bill or the this poster?
Besides this post getting the facts wrong(A modest and incremential; change?) people that have objections seem to be compared with approval with popele that beat up Catholics, supporters of slave holders,hooligans that terrorize blacks, and other assorted folks.
I thought there was a post on here a few days ago everyone was in the amen corner on being more careful with language.
As far as I can tell the active conservative opposition comes from three elements:
1. The Blue Dogs and Senators Grassley, Enzi and Snowe.
2. The Industry interests (Insurance companies, AMA, PhARMA, hospitals) quietly back by mainstream Republicans.
3. the Nut Cases.
I think with the frist two, while I have fundemental disagreements, there can be a civil dialogue. The third element named is out to lunch.
Gerald,
Well put. Blunt, but true.
Opposition only comes from the powerful – the regular folks must be the nut cases then :P
How can there be a civil dialogue when #2 is intimately tied with #3 and #1 is financially tied to #2?
Seems like one big boiling caldron to me. Where does the common good factor into all this?
Eventually, all pretense to dialogue will stop and a bill will pass.
B.C.,
Thanks.
To get a perspective on how things have deteriorated, reflect back to 1980/81 when Reagan spoke of “morning in America.” Now think of the dynamics of the “town hall meetings” and the hanging of Members of Congress in effigy.
It’s just sickening and should be called out for what it is.
Oh, if you’re only talking about the mainstream political debate/shouting match, then you have half a point. There are indeed a great deal of anger that is not leading to clear-thinking opposition to the proposed legislation. The other half is that the Democratic ‘leadership’ is no better, misrepresenting all opposition as Naziesque astroturf fake anger. This is obviously nonsense, but when you feel entitled to do what you want without debate, I can see how opposition, whether enraged or rational, is threatening.
But it seems my initial impression of this site was mistaken – it seemed to me that posters here were more serious and thoughtful than that. Saying that there are no alternative plans is just silly, and I’d be happy to google these for you and post them here. Granted, these are not fully fleshed out proposals, but rather statements of principles. But a fair observer can understand why the minority party is busy fighting what they perceive as a rush to pass legislation that no one has read, even if the minority has not yet completed the alternative legislation. Saying there is no alternative is simply nonsense, and exactly the kind of demagoguery you claim to be offended by in your post.
I could also post some links to more thoughtful critiques of what is so far known about the legislation, but if I can sum up the challenges, it would be something like this.
Three main areas of concern:
1) The language employed by the majority leadership, including Obama. Those opposed must “get out of the way” and “stop talking”. Without any proof, those who express concerns at town halls are called “well-dressed shills for private interests” like insurance companies. The movement against the legislation is supposed to be fake grassroots, and the doings of the far right fringe, although polls indicate that far more than the far right are concerned. Asking people to report “misinformation” about the legislation to the White House is also a grave concern. Can you imagine the uproar if the Bush White House had asked people to report “misinformation” about the war directly to them?
2a) What we know about the Democratic party’s stance on life issues. Obama promised he would pass FOCA, which would eliminate conscience protections for those who wouldn’t want to perform abortions or prescribe abortifacients and contraception; and would ensure that abortion (which has called a “basic human right”) would be paid for by our tax dollars. Certainly an objection based on Obama’s and the party’s stance on abortion as a basic human right deserves more careful consideration.
2b) The CBO has admitted that there would be no cost control in the current legislation, contrary to what Obama and congressional leadership had been claiming. To control costs then, the government would have to ration care based on quantifiable utility concerns. I find it amazing that you don’t seem the least bit troubled by this, and that you feel confident that you can dismiss all such concerns as baseless or irresponsible.
3) The degree of Government control. Sections 440 and 1904 of the bill as it now stands call explicitly for government workers to “provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains … modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices,” and “skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development.” Are you telling me that to object to this is irrational?
I could go on, but this is already too long. It may be convenient to dismiss all opposition as the feverish whining of “nut cases”, but if that is your stance, don’t be surprised if you’re not taken seriously. I would expect your fellow posters on this site to at least agree with this point, even if they agree with you that government intervention in health care is a good idea.
Sorry, gents but healthcare reform like every other type of reform and regulation ends up not benefiting the people but the regulated.
Big business has always welcomed regulation in order attempt to obtain stability in the economy and to restrict competition. This is an argument not only advanced by arachnolibertarians on Lewrockwell.com but also by more liberal economists such as Gabriel Kolko in his book the Triumph of Conservatism.
This has even now begun with healthcare reform in the deal Obama struck with Big Pharma to get their support for the reform.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aESaiuV9nyBY
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/08/10/pharma/index.html
Another thing it does my soul good to see Congressmen and Congresswomen no longer being treated like Lords and Ladies to whom the masses must pay deference and homage. I only wish that they would have gotten or be getting the same treatment in regard to their support of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You may refer to these passionate individuals at Townhall meetings as “nutcases”; But, isn’t that the same as dismissing those who protested the Vietnam War as “long haired commie hippie freaks”?
The other half is that the Democratic ‘leadership’ is no better, misrepresenting all opposition as Naziesque astroturf fake anger.
No. The Democratic leadership has not misrepresented all opposition as Naziesque astroturf fake anger. I identified two elements with whom the Party is having a civil discussion (we are yet to see if it is a fruitful discussion). The complaints have been properly targeted.
rush to pass legislation that no one has read…
I’ve read it. Am I “no one”?
Asking people to report “misinformation” about the legislation to the White House is also a grave concern. Can you imagine the uproar if the Bush White House had asked people to report “misinformation” about the war directly to them?
The Bush Administration did. The fact you are not aware of it suggests that there was not significant negative reaction.
re 2(a) we will watch this issue. It seems not to be the primary concern of the Town Hallers other than some untruthful claims about euthenasia.
The CBO has admitted that there would be no cost control in the current legislation
The CBO did not say there would be no cost control. Its numbers might not exactly match up with the Administration’s, but your assertion is not true.
I also find it odd that when the President speaks of any form of cost control, the accusation is rationing. Yet the congressional conservatives are insistant about holding down the costs of the program and existing programs.
As to your #3, I’m not calling opposition to that grant program irrational, but I think opposition to it is contrary to the common good. This expands a current program directed to desparately poor and often socially isolated families. Yes, I think social services should not just be sending people a check. States should have programs where mothers are told that if your child is three and not speaking or four and does not know how to count, there is a problem. Maybe in the sanitized Republican parts of town, it doesn’t even occur to folks this kind of help is needed, but I can tell you from personal experience, it is real and needs to be addressed.
Gerald L. Campbell:
““does it serve truth to lump all those in opposition into the category of thoughtless demagogues?” Absolutely. Yes it does.”
Are you upset that the ‘selling point’ for reform was that it would reduce costs and benefit the economy, but that there seems to be little to no likelihood that whatever plan passes will actually reduce health care expenditures?
Are you concerned about federally subsidized insurance plans covering elective abortion?
Are you worried that we’ll get an godawful mess like the energy bill that the house passed because of the sense of urgency that’s been manufactured in order to pass something lickety split!
If you answered ‘yes’ to any of these questions, then you are obviously a thoughtless demagogue!
“Are you upset that the ’selling point’ for reform was that it would reduce costs and benefit the economy, but that there seems to be little to no likelihood that whatever plan passes will actually reduce health care expenditures?”
Not true.
“Are you concerned about federally subsidized insurance plans covering elective abortion?”
No. It’s a side issue.
“Are you worried that we’ll get an godawful mess like the energy bill that the house passed because of the sense of urgency that’s been manufactured in order to pass something lickety split!”
No. House and Senate committees have been working on provisions of this bill for nearly three years. This is no “lickety split” bill.
According to your standard, I guess I’m not a thoughtless demagogue!
Stephen,
First of all, I would happily leave the nutcases to themselves if the Republican party stopped pandering to these nutcases at the highest level. That is a key difference between the two parties.
Second, if you are new here, I posted a lot on different health care options over the past few years. The bottom line is that I have yet to see a serious GOP healthcarew reform plan. Everything seems tilted toward the glorified free market, and letting giving people tax credits to swim alone with the big insurance company sharks. These plans would make the situation worse and not even curb costs — see the findings of the major healthcare researchers like David Cutler and Jonathan Gruber. In fact, the GOP does not want reform. They like the status quo, because they care about the financial bottom line of some of their major contributors.
Third, everything seems terribly confused about rationing. What is the free market system but rationing by price? 47 million people are rationed out the the healthcare system. A further 25 million are rationed on cost grounds. Remember, insurance companies make money and boost share prices by minimizing what they call “medical losses”. Everybody with a private healthcare plan faces limits on what the plan will cover, some generous, some not. What is going to change under the plan? You act as if we were suddenly moving to a UK-style single provider national healthcare system. Not so. The system will remain private. The public option (which will “ration” in exactly the same way as the private system) will be restricted to a small number of people — those without employer insurance and small businesses, and even these people will have private options.
As for the CBO, I’ve lost track of the number of times it has scored different versions of reform, but the figure that sticks in my head is $1 trillion over 10 years for coversing 42 million more people. The understanding is that this would be budget neutral — my preference is to pay for it by increasing the top marginal tax rate in a way that would only effect the very rich. But here’s the problem: one of the reasons why the cost control element is not stronger is because the opposition screams loudest at all sensible measures to curb costs — panels to tie reimbursement to heath outcomes, a public option to make the private sector more honest, bargaining with drug companies to bring prices down etc.
Plus, as I’ve said many times, the heathcare costs included in the government budget is only the tip of the iceberg. Private insurance costs are rising faster than public costs, but the opponents of reform don’t like to talk about that. Who is winning? The hugely profitable insurance industry. And who is losing? Workers whose wages are stagnant, reflecting rising healthcare costs. If only those protesting fools could make this connection…but to to that, they would need to liberate their minds from the poison spewed by the Limbaugh brigade.
Awakaman: You may refer to these passionate individuals at Townhall meetings as “nutcases”; But, isn’t that the same as dismissing those who protested the Vietnam War as “long haired commie hippie freaks”?
Well, I know what the war protestors were against — an unjust war in Vietman. What exactly are the healthcare protestors protesting against? They seem insanely clueless about the issues.
My primary care physican is against Obama’s plan because he feels it will destroy his ability to provide good care to his patients (I am supposed to trust my congressman’s opinion more than his).
The nurses I know are against it for similar reasons (I am supposed to believe they don’t know what they’re talking about when it comes to health matters, but career politicians do).
The uninsured members of my family who have serious health problems are against the plan because they believe it will interrupt the wonderful healthcare they have received under the current system (so as a member of the opposition they are part of the “thoughtless rabble,” although they are too sick to go to a town hall meeting and cause our elected officials discomfort by voicing dissent).
Personally while I would be very sympathetic to Obama’s plan (and I would perhaps like “single payer” even better) I can’t, since it includes provisions that will make it easier to crush the poorest of the poor (the unborn). And it’s completely wrong, by the way, to set up opposition between the common good and concern for “the least of these,” and push that concern away as a so-called side issue.
I think a lot of the reaction from the left to the public dissent we are seeing is frustration that the honeymoon is over. Dissent is the highest form of patriotism, and I’m surprised by how quickly the Democrats have forgotten that now that the shoe is on the other foot! President Obama is good at beautiful words but beautiful speaking is NOT ENOUGH when it comes to serious matters. He needs to learn the art of explaining. There are plenty of people willing to listen and actually wanting him to say something that will put their concerns to rest, but we’re getting nada!
Are you concerned about federally subsidized insurance plans covering elective abortion?
To an equal degree I am concerned about employer subsidized insurance plans covering elective abortions.
If someone has an explanation of thirty years of silence by the National Right to Life Committee on big business subsidies of abortion other than their political alliance with them, I would like to hear it.
If anyone has an explantion of the silence when George W. Bush pushed through over liberal opposition a new health care plan for federal employees that would allow them to cover abortions, I would like to hear it.
Basically, if there is a proposal that says you cannot buy private health insurance that covers abortion with a government voucher, I will support it. But if such an amendment fails, I’m still supporting health care reform.
Under current law, federal health care programs do not cover abortion. Private plans may and most do.
If you don’t want abortion coverage, then support a total government take over of health care.
This is disheartening. As a generally conservative person(although to some of my conservative/libertarian friends, I seem like a lefty on certain points of immigration and some other issues as I try to understand and hue to Catholic Social Teaching), I like to speak with those who hold a different view. I’ve found some on this site who, although to my left politically, seem to also find valuable a fair exchange with someone who offers a thoughtful opposing view.
You are insisting that you be granted distinctions that you deny others (we’re all good-hearted and thinking for ourselves, they’re all hateful idiots!), which lets you feel confident in demonizing them. You pretend that only the Right panders to its nutcases, as if the Left doesn’t. How is glorifying government better than glorifying the free market (hey, I can exaggerate if you can)?
You seem unconcerned about aspects of the legislation that should trouble any student of history and any Catholic (coverage for abortion a “side issue”? Government agents telling people how to raise their kids? etc…). You act as if being indignant is tantamount to argument.
You unquestioningly endorse a form of public/private competition and ignore that one party in this equation is actually making the rules. How long can this competition last? And when there is no more competition, how are they going to control costs?
You act as if concerns about euthanasia have no basis in fact. Tell me, what principle would/did this administration write into the legislation which would preclude the government from making life and death decisions for the elderly and disabled whose care might easily be deemed too costly? Acting offended that the concern even exists is, again, not an argument.
You don’t care that Obama is dishonestly denying that he, in the past, has called for a single-payer system. Even caught on video saying this, and saying that we won’t get there right away, his people have the audacity to claim he was “taken out of context”. Tell him to step up and admit it, and say how his views have changed, IF they have.
You are failing in intellectual honesty and in Christian Charity. Like I said, this is disheartening, as I’ve been looking to dialogue with those on the Catholic left (and right) who have the good will to avoid DailyKos-style psychosis. I suppose I’ll have to look for other threads here, as I still have hope for the other writers.
MM:
Maybe they are protesting a bill that is being shoved through Congress with very little understanding of who it benefits, what benefits it provides and what the conditions of those benefits will be. Maybe they are protesting reforming a system that they don’t feel is broken. If it ain’t broken then why fix it?
When you attempt to ramrod something through Congress whether it be a healthcare package or a war without thoughtful deliberation or understanding of the legislation I tend to get suspicious – natural cynicism and distrust of politicians whether they be Democrat, Republican or Independent.
Unfortunately, legislation has ceased to be a deliberative process. It has become an “OMG we have a crisis (real or contrived) we have to pass some sort of legislation and quickly to make it look like we are doing something, details be damned – let the bureacrats sort those out.”
Maybe those protesting should take some time to read the bill (a charge they give to others but seemingly do not themselves). Palin’s comment were out and out untruthful. So have many other things said.
Attending a Town Hall meeting can be a good opportunity to learn more about the plan, unless a small group shouts down every attempt to have a discussion.
We have been considering national health care since 1947. I don’t consider that to be rushed. This proposal has been worked on for months with four congressional committees marking up bills and a fifth still working.
I say back to the nut cases “Read the bill”
Magdalena,
I would be curious to understand the arguments of your primary care physician. And what kind of “wonderful healthcare” do your uninsured family members receive? And who is paying for it? Under the current proposals, those with employer-issued insurance will see no change — I actually think that is a shame. The whole reform focuses on setting up health exchanges to insure those who fall outset the net, to subdidize who can’t pay, and to make sure that insurance companies play by the rules. That’s it. How in God’s name does this make anybody worse off?
Kurt:
If someone has an explanation of thirty years of silence by the National Right to Life Committee on big business subsidies of abortion other than their political alliance with them, I would like to hear it.
Excellent point. I stand with Michael Sean Winters on this one — Catholics should fully support this reform and fight as much as possible against abortion coverage, public or private. Unfortunately, the Republicaths are not to be trusted. They don’t want this reform and they will use the unborn as weapons in a political fight. I find that disgraceful.
Sadly, when it comes to abortion, and indeed ESCR, it seems that the real problem is when “big goverment” not the glorious private sector is doing the dirty work.
OK, a pattern is developing. I’m willing to support some substainial policy concessions, if the President’s critics will stop bringing guns with them to Town Hall meetings.
Stephen,
I think you protest too much — my last response to you was (or at least was meant to be) civil and fact-based.
You talk of government setting the rules. I say that is precisely the point – to prevent insurance companies from dropping people and denying coverage simply to make a buck. That is rationing of the most nefarious kind.
You talk of the government pushing euthanasia. If we are dwelling on hypotheticals, I can tell you that it is far more likely that a life would be ended in a private system where cost is the bottom line — and could only be sustained if the family is willing to pay an inordinate amount of money. In fact, the law in many states currently allows hospitals to withdraw care to lives they deem no longer worth living. Now, there is a long tradition in Catholic social teaching on whether a treatment is proportionate and hence morally obligatory or disproportionate and hence morally optional, but surely we do not want such decisions to be taken based on cost? And please refer to my example of Elizabeth Anscombe’s daughter who suffered a strike – discarded in the US, cared for to this day in the British national health system.
You mention single payer. I don’t know Obama’s views on this. If he is sensible, he supports it. I support it. I believe it is most equitable and efficient way of providing universal healthcare — all studies show that single payer systems deliver as good outcomes as the US system for less than half the cost. And no, there need not be waiting lists (it’s much easier in some countries to see doctors at short notice), and yes, you can choose your own doctor. Americans are simply too blinded by free market propaganda, and by the crazy belief that Ronald Reagan is the answer to every question, asked and unasked, to look at this with an open mind. Oh, and if this reform does not do much to control costs, its is because it retains the current private elements.
It’s actually quite simple, as Paul Krugman notes:
“The essence is really quite simple: regulation of insurers, so that they can’t cherry-pick only the healthy, and subsidies, so that all Americans can afford insurance.
Everything else is about making that core work. Individual mandates are a way to prevent gaming of the system by people who don’t sign up until they’re sick; employer mandates a way to hold down the on-budget costs by preventing a rush by employers to drop insurance; the public option a way to create effective competition and hold costs down further.
But what it means for the individual will be that insurers can’t reject you, and if your income is relatively low, the government will help pay your premiums.
That’s it. Any commentator who whines that he just doesn’t understand it is basically saying that he doesn’t want to understand it.”
Government agents telling parents how to raise their kids…
If this is going to be the latest in a series of wild accusations, let put it in its place right now. The expansion of home visitations under Title XIX is a very good thing. Often this work is contracted to social service agencies, Catholic Charities being one of the most common.
These are the homebound poor, people with mental and physical disabilities, people living in isolated rural areas or Indian reservations or in the inner city. They bring a human touch to social services. They talk to parents about removing lead paint from the walls of their children’s room. They give extremely poor women with little education information about good nutrition during pregnancy and while breast feeding as well as for their child in early years. They provide women with information about making their home safe for a new baby.
It is nothing less than cruel and immoral to make these women and their children pawns in attempts to prevent national health care.
The Catholic Charities social workers and others who visit these women, often in rat infested apartment buildings, surrounded by drug dealers, with limited education to care for their often underweight babies ARE NOTHING LESS THAN HEROS.
Decent people would be ashamed to bash these home visitors.
MM, Kurt, thanks for the effort.
I fear you are throwing pearls away on swine.
MM, the outstanding healthcare I mention refers to my sister, whom I have posted about on some other reform posts. Long story short, she is uninsured and uninsurable due to her health and she recently had a six figure hospital stay at the Cleveland Clinic, which required the surgical removal of one of her organs at NO cost to her or our family. The expense was absorbed by the Clinic and its benefactors, a service they provide to many people (they have an entire department dedicated solely to making care affordable for patients. For the uninsurable care is 100% free up to 200% of the federal poverty level and costs are adjusted on a sliding scale for incomes after that). She has to have two additional surgeries next year, also very expensive, and we are hoping the Prez’s ideas do not derail her care plan or cause her to lose access to her surgeon etc – she does not qualify for Medicaid, but she would likely be forced onto the government plan if it is in effect at that time. As her family we prefer to deal with doctors and not with office drones, especially since she can technically survive without further (very expensive) intervention. So who knows if they would make her wait, or even approve it! In Europe and Canada people with her condition get to cool their heels unless things suddenly turn life-threatening.
Incidentally she was also on 14 pills a day, most of which she got for free and the rest of which she got at a heavily discounted rate through the various private drug programs already in place. Post-surgery she has a lot of equipment she has to use to manage her condition, and that is all free for her, too.
I haven’t really gotten into it with our family doctor since I was recently there for pink eye (augh!) and wanted to keep it short, but I know he can’t be put into the “money grubbing doctor” category Obama likes to use to explain away physcian’s concerns – he has treated us for free when we were between insurance companies, too. And also helped us to get free medication etc. His expressed concern is that he will no longer be able to offer the same level of care as before. I know doctors who have retired early because they say health care reform coming and did not want to deal with the fall out.
His expressed concern is that he will no longer be able to offer the same level of care as before.
Meaning what exactly?
Magelena,
I am happy for you and your sister that you happened to come across such compassionate and giving doctors. Both of you are very lucky.
But you can’t seriously suggest that such a situation is what the uninsured of this country face. Your story is heartwarming and I appreciate hearing of it from a human interest standpoint. But I don’t think it adds anything to the public policy discussion unless you are suggesting improving the system for most peopel might upset the special arrangement your family has.
meaning what exactly?
I don’t want to put words in his mouth but I think he feels the government bean counters are going to be more aggressive about cost-cutting than the private insurance bean counters he already deals with. He also seems to believe that the current compromise system – with private insurance existing alongside a government plan – won’t last long, and his entire profession will be swallowed up by an intrusive bureaucracy that will tell him what level of care he can and can’t provide. “They don’t fancy being government employees,” as my mother put it.
Kurt, my point is that I don’t think my family’s arrangements are all that special or unusual. I think there are a lot of people – including poor people like my sister – who are mostly satisfied with the way the system has worked for them, and we don’t hear their voices because of all the shouting.
Don’t get me wrong, I know there is a lot wrong with our current way of doing things and I don’t think health care should be a product to be marketed and consumed, which is how we treat it now. I have heard the horror stories about what sometimes happens with people getting sick without insurance. But there are horror stories with every system, and a lot of people like the devil they know better than the devil they don’t know. And for some people (like my family) the health care system hasn’t been a devil at all. This was actually brought up during a public forum in my area, from a guy who said he was getting affordable care (and free meds), but the congressman kind of took the question in a different direction and didn’t really address it, which disappointed me.
It’s true for my family that the root of our disapproval is probably tied to our fears about what will happen to my sister (found out today the bleeding has started again). Perhaps taken alone that motivation is selfish and displays a lack of concern for, and solidarity with, other people’s sisters and daughters. Nevertheless I’m sure no one would begrudge us the opportunity to fight for her and resist something that might change her care for the worse.
Magelena,
I can guarantee you your family’s arrangements as you describe are very special. I’m glad you sister doesn’t suffer any waits for her health care, but this is the first I have heard of a doctor who treats those getting hands-outs first and makes his paying customers wait. It is VERY atypical.
I simply disagree that we should not have universal health care because some near-poor people have found hand-outs they are happy with. Millions more have not. I’ve known women who have the first mammogram in their life when they turn 65 and qualify for Medicare (i.e. single payer health care).
Senator Grassley jumps on the crazy cart today, claiming that “Americans have the right to fear” death panels and that “Grandma could die” with respect to the proposed legislation.
He is,unfortunately, a top Republican negotiator with respect to healthcare reform.
One word, Mark: “Reconciliation” (and I don’t mean the Post-Vatican II style of going to confession!)
I am Magdalena’s sister.
Kurt:
My doctors treated me even though I was getting a “hand out” because my doctors are on salary. They do not distinguish between the insured and uinsured; it makes no difference to them in how they are paid.
I am not nearly poor, I am poor. I barely cleared 10 grand last year. I have spent most of my admittedly brief adult life being poor and living among the poor. I have experienced the health care system in 3 different cities. I have always received prompt, excellent care.
The reason health care reform is considered such an important issue is it is a middle class issue. If it was really about the poor, it would be ignored. Middle class people have to pay for insurance, because their larger incomes disqualify them for charitable programs. And it inflates their costs to have poor, uninsured people like me treated for free.
They complain.
So, the government is going to fix it for them, so richer, middle class people will be able to buy private insurance and better care, while the poor are shunted off into a government program for tightly regulated, cost controlled care.
Gerald & Kurt-
Gerald,
[... ] You are not a thoughtless demagogue according to your own definition, and that’s not much to brag about. The fact that you aren’t even troubled by the points I brought up (not that they would or wouldn’t sway you- but that you are unconcerned) makes me think that you are less being thoughtful than you’d like to believe.
Whether my second point is merely a side issue for an individual is a matter for their conscience, but the fact that my conscience troubles me about it does not make me a thoughtless demagogue, and I would challenge anyone to find an way to demonstrate otherwise. The first point is most definitely true (are you disagreeing that it won’t cut costs or that it wasn’t a selling point?), and so is the third (how can it not be hurried when there still isn’t agreement about whether the final bill will have to include a public option?!).
Kurt,
“If someone has an explanation of thirty years of silence by the National Right to Life Committee on big business subsidies of abortion other than their political alliance with them, I would like to hear it.”
You’ve said something like this elsewhere, but I don’t know what you’re referring to. If you’re assuming that everyone knows what you’re talking about, then I’m letting you know that I do not.
Also, if you’re in the mood to explain something else- I still haven’t figured out exactly how the Capps amendment affects those in the exchange whose premiums are subsidized. I’m not clear if they are being required to pay out of pocket for the additional expense of abortion coverage or not. I’ve seen more than one description, but the way it was worded confused me.
ockraz,
“You are not a thoughtless demagogue according to your own definition, and that’s not much to brag about.”
Stop this crap. You don’t know me or what I think, know, and do.
As I said previously, I’m not troubled by the three points you raised. Not at all. I thought I made that clear. I said: 1) No; 2) Not True; and 3); No.
Clearly, you have your opinions! You disagree with me. I accept that you disagree and do so in good conscience. I’m fine with that. But, whether you agree or not is of no concern. I’m not trying to persuade you of anything.
So what’s your point?
As for the rest, yes, the bill will cut costs. It will also be budget neutral.
As for speed, the only complainers are the Republicans. That’s politics. But I don’t believe there is undue haste. Nor does the leadership. The elements that will make up the final bill have been around for a long time. What is left to do is “cut and paste” based on what the leadership judges can be passed — i.e., political strategy. Staff are working out the details right now. It will pretty much be done when Members return.
“Senator Grassley jumps on the crazy cart today”
Mark,
Senator Grassley has probably made passage of health care legislation easier by his actions today.
Think about it. The top Republican negotiator has unmasked himself as a tribal chief in the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies series. He has signaled the end of the bipartisan effort? This frees up the process.
Who will ever trust Grassley again?
Gerald,
Don’t tell me to stop the crap when you are the one who dished it out by saying,
““does it serve truth to lump all those in opposition into the category of thoughtless demagogues?”-
Absolutely. Yes it does.”
You are the one who cast aspersions, sir.
ockraz,
Let me repost the entire text of what I wrote above. I take nothing back. The fact that you think these comments are “aspersions” is an indication of how out of touch you are with existing political reality.
I began my comment with this quote: ““does it serve truth to lump all those in opposition into the category of thoughtless demagogues?”
My response was as follows:
“Absolutely. Yes it does.
“Thoughtless demagogues constitute the Republican opposition. You imply it doesn’t? Well then, I ask: Where is sane Republican leadership?
“Where is Dick Armey — former Majority Leader of the House? He has put together the “instructions” on how to disrupt discourse. Where Sen. Mitch McConnell or John Boehner? They are urging the rabble onward. They are using them as an instrument for crass political gain. They want to gain through someone else’s loss.
“If the Republicans sincerely want to engage in a “sane” dialogue, they would have a proposal from which to debate. But where is the Republican health care proposal? The short answer is: There is none. Nor has there been a Republican health care proposal for over three decades.
“Yes, the Republican opposition IS a collection of mindless demagogues.”
(end quote)
I should have added Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to this roster. Who knows what Michael Steele is doing?
The people mentioned above are concerned with one thing and one thing only: POWER. The accumulation of POWER at any cost is the name of their game. They exhibit no concern for the common good nor are they beholden to the truth. They and their ilk are a threat to the integrity of the democratic process.
Ockraz,
Most Americans get health insurance from plans offered by their employers. Some of these plans cover elective abortions and most cover at least abortions in some circumstances. The NRTLC has no history of any activism in opposing businesses that offer abortion services. Nevertheless, they particpate in weekly meetings with business and free-marekt lobbyists coordianting conservative strategy, political endorsements and messaging.
The Capps amendment is confusing and it is clearly a compromise and not everything many of would like on abortion. As i understand it, private insurance company is allowed to offer its product on the exchange. The private company determines what optional benefits it offer. Lower income people are given vouchers to help purchase the policy of their choice. There is some accounting segregation and a company could charge a higher premium for abortion coverage but it probably does not mean much because abortion coverage really doesn’t add any costs to health care.
Lizzy,
I’m sorry for your economic situation. Your sister told me that you were not eligable for Medicaid but it would seem to me by your description that you clearly are.
I think you are right that part of the drive for health care reform is by middle class and working class people whose health care premiums are higher because they are paying for charity care. Elsewhere on VN, there is a discussion if there should be “forced charity” by taxation. This seems another means of “forced charity.”
If you and others in your situation are not suffering waits and the paying customers are not suffering waits, then I don’t see where you sister’s suggestion that people will have to wait for health care is coming from.
No one is proposing a law that makes it illegal to give someone in need a handout. If your doctor is giving you two free mammograms a year and you go on Medicaid which only pays for one a year, he or she is still free to give you a second mammogram for free. In fact, then at least he or she is paid for one. If he/she doesn’t want to do the Medicaid paperwork, she/he is still free to give you two and not put in for payment (though I can tell you the Cleveland Clinic already assembles paperwork on the care they do that matches what Medicaid asks for, so that is really not an issue).
Kurt:
Don’t be sorry for my economic situation. I’m not. I am not elligible for Medicaid, since I am not elderly, disabled or pregnant. These are the groups covered by my state.
I don’t think the higher premiums count as “forced charity.” The state does not compel (so far anyway) anyone to buy health insurance. The state does compel people to pay their taxes.
I am a member of an advocacy group for people with my condition which happens to be based out of the UK. They routinely wait months for surgery, in the meantime suffering in truly horrible ways. I had mine done in less than a week. I don’t know why they have to wait so long. My guess is, its because there’s thick layers of bureacracy applied to the system.
Wealthy British people, of course, can afford to go outside the system … “go private,” as they say. They have seperate hospitals, where presumably their care is not complicated by bureaucratic hoop jumping.
My doctors schedule tests for whenever they think I need them. They are on salary and it makes no difference to their pocketbook. Their sole concern is keeping me healthy so that their outcome statistics stay in the upper eschalon.
My doctors do not have a balance sheet, but the hospital does. It provides charity care because that is part of its mission as a non-profit. But if there is a way for them to recover money, they’ll do it. They’ll fill out the paperwork, and jump through the hoops, and require patients to wade through the bureaucratic whirl pool.
In many ways, uninsured people like me have a great deal more flexibility and health care choice than people who, because they are elligible, are required by the hospital to use Medicaid/Medicare/HCAP.
Lizzy,
I work a job and earn a salary. My employer offers health insurance as part of my compensation. My choices are my insurnace or asking for a hand out like you. I would consider it morally wrong for me to turn down a perfectly good health care plan and instead take a hand out when I get health care. To me that comes pretty close to saying I’m forced into my health care plan which subsizes those receving a hand out.
I’m not denying that you have a sweet deal. You don’t have to deal with the bureuacracy private insurance companies impose on people. Good for you. I wish everyone, particularly the poor, were so lucky.
With the President’s plan we will a little less of the games private insurnace companies play causing all of the unneeded paperwork. We will see poor people who have not fallen into the sweet deal you have be able to get health care. You certainly can’t fault others for wanting the same charity you receive, can you?
I guess my point is, like I said, I have received medical treatment in 3 different cities, in several different hospitals. I have worked and lived among other poor people in need of medical care. I cannot say that my “deal” is especially sweet. In fact, in my experience, they are fairly typical for someone in my income range.
People don’t complain that they don’t get good medical care, or that they can’t get medical care at all. They complain that it COSTS so much. Well who is it costing? Not the poor. The poorest people in this country already can get medical care for free. The people who are complaining are middle class. They are the people who have wallets to empty.
Whatever this healthare reform thing is, its impetus is not aid for the poor. It’s a bourgeois thing. The middle class trying to hang on to more of their cash … can’t blame them … but its hardly a matter of social justice.
P.S. Do you really mean to say that government regulation will reduce paperwork? Seriously?
I have to admit that Lizzy’s experience is not like what I have observed personally.
My father-in-law got a bad cold around Christmastime about ten years ago. Because he had no income and no insurance at the time, he didn’t receive any medical care until it turned into pneumonia and his family rushed him to the ER. By then he was too far gone and passed away on New Year’s Day.
Perhaps there were medical care options available to him that he simply didn’t know about. But I can’t help but wonder if healthcare reform would have made a difference for him.
Yes, I serious think the insane paperwork bureaucracy of the private insurance industry can be reduced and the best start would be the government prohibiting from practicing some of the self-serving games they play.
The evidence seems to be overwhelming that millions of Americans go without needed medical care. I would imagine it is those with little formal education or with language problems who have the most difficult time. But I have no doubt it is real.
And I really don’t think it is right that millions of American who work full time and contribute to the success and profitability of their employer go without insurance and have to depend on hand-outs. That has nothing to do with the quality of hand-outs they receive. It has to do with the dignity of labor.
Providing health care for any person is a matter of justice before it is a matter of charity.
Gerald,
Here is the original context,
“Stephen Phelan Says:
If the complaint is a lack of reasoned discussion over the proposed government reform of health care, then does it serve truth to lump all those in opposition into the category of thoughtless demagogues?”
What you’ve done, is say, ‘yes- all those in opposition should be lumped together as thoughtless demagogues’, and then you seek to justify this lumping together by pointing to the existence of demagogues, which wasn’t germane to Stephen’s question.
I asked three questions which, if one answered in the affirmative, could be a reason for being in opposition and which (in my opinion) would not make one thoughtless. You (obviously) answered ‘no’ to these question, but that was beside the point- unless you are going to argue that anyone who answers ‘yes’ is thoughtless.
You were painting with far too broad a brush in labeling “all those in opposition” as you did. How is that not casting aspersions? You can call my remarks ‘crap’ again, or you can say that I am out of touch (again) or accuse me of thoughtlessness or lump me in with the demagogues (which would be ironic given that, personally, I haven’t completely made up my mind since we still don’t have a clear vision of what the final bill will look like and those things which would make me oppose it might yet be fixed- which is the same stance that some congressional democrats have taken), but it does nothing to bolster your position.
For one to presuppose that there is no reasonable basis for opposition (which must be the case if the opposition is thoughtless and merely stirred to action by demagoguery) would suggest that one should be lumped in with thoughtless ideologues.
Kurt,
I see- You’re saying that the NRLC hasn’t gone after companies or corporations which offered abortion in their health insurance. (Correct?) Is it merely that they have been silent on the issue of private coverage, or do you believe that they’ve cooperated with those same companies? The latter would be a much more serious accusation.
I am still trying to sort out the Capps Amendment. I have a pdf copy of it. Here’s a link…
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090730/hr3200_capps_1.pdf
I didn’t find it very helpful.
I’m still unclear about the way that funds are collected, segregated, and paid out.
Do you know how much the cost is? (You said it was very little.)
ockraz,
Sure, there are a few Republican conservatives here and there who might present a reasoned opposition to the emerging health care plan. But so what? For reasons that are fully justified, many of them no longer align themselves with the current makeup of the party. Even if they did, the current “shouting match” engineered by Pundit, Party, and Republican congressional leaders in no way reflects an ability to exercise reasoned discourse.
Reasonable people no longer matter in today’s Republican Party. The Party has been hijacked by “nut cases”, from top to bottom.
Indeed, the evidence clearly shows demagoguery to rule today’s Republican Party. From the Republican leadership in the Congress, to the Chairman of the RNC, to the media pundits, to the strategies used in their national campaigns, there has been a consistent appeal to outlandish lies and an ongoing attempt to confuse the public. This has been going on for a couple decades.
The efforts of these people has not been to make America a better place but to accumulate Power. And for what purpose? There is no purpose. What did they accomplish when they controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency? Wars, debt, etc. What stands out that is positive?
This destructive energy is now concentrated in the debate on health care. The behavior of people like Dick Armey, Mitch McConnell, and John Boehner reflects their strategic thinking and that of their base.
Have you reflected on the makeup of today’s Republican Party? Their appeal is to 25% of the American public and it doesn’t go beyond that. These people are angry as hell, even though Republicans ruled in Washington from 1994 to 2008. Moreover, this appeal is concentrated in the South — which explains much of the language directed against the President. From top to bottom, there is intellectual and moral corruption.
Why do you want to defend these people? Why not call it a national disgrace at this moment in time and pressure for change. As for me, I stand by my remarks and only wish I had the capacity to muster a language that reflects even more my outrage.
Eventually a new Republican Party will emerge. But it won’t look anything like what we’ve seen for the last couple decades.
ockraz,
The NRTL pariticpates in regular meetings with business interests to coordinate political,legislative and messaging strategy. They are doing so now on opposition to the President’s health care plan.