While I appreciate President Obama's desire to include Republicans in the health care reform process, I've long passed the point of expecting them (the Republicans) to bring anything constructive to the conversation.
If Obama were to step outside the White House and say it's a beautiful sunny day, a dozen morons would be on Fox News within hours claiming that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that the sun is too hot, and that the use of trees for free, relaxing shade is a socialist plot anyway. As long as rich white people have air conditioners and everyone else can't afford them ...
But anyway, the point is, those who seem to be most vocal (ie, screamin' blue crazy) about the issue are the ones who:
1. Probably aren't relying on their insurance right now for major health issues, or
2. Are rich or employed by insurance groups who are using scare tactics to get those in #1 to support them. (Obama's going to kill you. It's true! He's hiding under the bed, and the call is coming from inside the house!)
President Obama has stated, quite clearly, that those who like their current insurance plans and doctors can keep them. Even more emphatically, he's tried to explain (with little success so far, as so many seem to have stuck their fingers in their ears, shouting "lalalalala!" to block out his words) that there is not/has never been/will never be a government "death panel" that will decide who gets coverage and treatment. (If anything, the insurance companies so fiercely opposed to the current reform considerations should embrace government-run death panels - what better way to convince people to stay with their current, private insurance rather than adopt a public, government-sponsored option? I can see the advertisements now: "100% Death Panel Free!", "Our co-payments and cost of medications may be ridiculous, but at least you'll be around to pay them!", "An arm and a leg? Doesn't sound like such a bad deal now, does it?")
In fact, Obama has stated an awful lot of things quite clearly about what kind of legislation he's looking for. The "trillion dollar" cost that's been decried was explained very well at one of his town hall events in New Hampshire a couple of weeks ago - that cost is spread out over ten years (it's not a one-time, immediate expenditure) , and part of it is paid for by canceling uncompetitive, wasteful contracts currently in place. In the President's own words (complete transcript here):
About two-thirds of those costs we can cover by eliminating the inefficiencies that I already mentioned. So I already talked about $177 billion worth of subsidies to the insurance companies. Let's take that money, let's put it in the kitty. There's about $500 billion to $600 billion over 10 years that can be saved without cutting benefits for people who are currently receiving Medicare, actually making the system more efficient over time. (Jim's note: read the entire transcript for more on this.)
That does still leave, though, anywhere from $300 billion to $400 billion over 10 years, or $30 billion to $40 billion a year. That does have to be paid for, and we will need new sources of revenue to pay for it. And I've made a proposal that would -- I want to just be very clear -- the proposal, my preferred approach to this would have been to take people like myself who make more than $250,000 a year, and limit the itemized deductions that we can take to the same level as middle-class folks can take them.
So yes ... taxes will go up. For those making $250K+. Those making under that amount pay no more in taxes. Which is what, exactly? Oh, yeah ... fulfilling his campaign promise. You know, the one that helped get him elected by people like me who voted for him for a reason?
A quick sidebar on taxes and new programs: no, they aren't all perfect. Some criticisms about the "cash for clunkers" program are very valid. The offer should have been for American car purchases only, for instance. The ball was dropped on that one, I'll be the first to admit. But as far as the argument that "we pay enough taxes already and I don't want my money to pay for someone else's insurance" is BS. As of now, Obama has stated that he wants to return to Clinton-era tax rates - you remember Bill Clinton, right? The guy who created a budget surplus and led us into a period of peace and prosperity in the 90s? But back to the point: the government is always going to use your tax money to fund programs that you'll disagree with. It's just the way things are. Unfortunately, we don't get to choose where or how our money is spent. I don't have any kids, but my tax dollars have been used to pay for public schools. While I lived in Boston, and then for a while in Portland, I didn't own a car - but my tax dollars funded upkeep and repair of roads and highways, walk signs, and red lights. Though I didn't get a direct benefit from these services, I certainly didn't complain that my tax contributions were being spent on them. And if I did have a choice on how my money would be spent, it certainly wouldn't have been allocated to pay for the war in Iraq. Anyway.
The problem, of course, is that those who oppose Obama (and it isn't so much his plans that they oppose, it's Obama himself; Mitt Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, led an effort to require health insurance for every resident of the state, but since he's a Republican that's apparently not socialism) so vehemently will never listen to him and believe what he's saying - which I can sort of understand, given that I didn't believe any of the bullshit from the Bush/Cheney years. But at least there was legitimate proof that Bush and Cheney were lying bastards; Obama hasn't done anything remotely similar in his few months in office so far. For instance: Bush said there was no domestic spying, and that there were WMDs in Iraq. Cheney even said he knew where they were. There's ample evidence at this point that illegal, warrant-less domestic spying took place; the WMD thing is subject to the argument that the weapons were all moved out of the country, which is possible, but the fact of the matter is that the stockpiles that the previous administration assured us were an imminent threat to the world have not been found and may not have actually existed. Two demonstrably false statements with major implications, right there. Meanwhile, there is not a single shred of evidence that "Barack Obama is going to kill your grandparents!" (Unlike Sarah Palin, who's apparently had a hand in just that sort of thing, intentional or otherwise.)
And if the anti-reform protesters aren't of their opinions because they intrinsically don't trust politicians, I'd venture to guess it's because they're ill-informed, paranoid, or bitter that their party lost during the last election cycle.
I should clarify and state that I'm referring to the crazies who show up to town hall meetings with guns, who shout down their elected representatives instead of trying to engage them like civil human beings, or who insist that Obama is, somehow, a Nazi. Only in today's Glen Beck-inspired Bizarro America is wanting to help preserve the health of 42 million people the equivalent of attempting to exterminate an entire religion's followers. It is absolutely possible to disagree with the President's plan, or to feel that Universal Health Care is a poor idea, and not come across as a raving lunatic or violent asshole. While I strongly disagree with many of their viewpoints on the health issue, I can at least respect that they're trying to maintain some level of class and decorum. I still hold out hope that the majority of Republicans and conservatives silently fall into this category, actually. I have no reason to doubt that they do.
The ones who are agitated enough by and then parrot what they see on certain 24-hour news networks and read on slanted blogs and websites, though ... hoo, boy. A few scant hours had passed following my last post warning that violence seemed imminent when a couple of scuffles broke out nationwide. I'm not exactly optimistic that we've seen the worst of it all at this point, either, though I hope I'm wrong. I mean, geez Louise, people are bringing loaded firearms to these events now. WTF?
My feelings about the whole circus echo many of the ones that others have already stated very eloquently:
1. That bringing firearms to town hall rallies has nothing to do with the health care issue itself. (Uh, derrr!)
Also, starting at about 2:35 of this clip from The Daily Show, you'll be reminded of how much hoopla there was when anti-Bush protesters were thrown out of various rallies for simply wearing anti-Bush t-shirts. Guns outside venues where President Obama is speaking? That's PATRIOTISM, apparently.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Gun Show - Barrel Fever | ||||
| ||||
2. That Republicans are bringing no viable alternatives to the discussion despite their alleged desire to be part of the process.
(Chris Matthews shows an unexpected flash of spine, especially at about 1:50 - this whole clip is really solid, though.)
"Here's my problem with you guys. The conservatives talk reasonably when the Democrats get in power and say 'well, we've got an alternative that's more free-market, it's less onerous, it's less big-shot, big-government stuff...' but when you guys are in power, you don't do anything on health care. And that's what happens, and that's why for, god, almost a century of foot-dragging on this, the Democrats get in power, whether it's Truman or it's Bill Clinton, or it's Hillary Clinton, or it's Barack Obama, they try something and it fails, because you guys are good at playing negative politics. You're really good at destroying Democrats plans, chances for reform..."
3. And that you don't mess with Barney Frank (Give 'em hell, Barney!):
**************
So, all of that having been said, are my own opinions regarding why I support Universal Health Care (or socialized medicine, or whatever you want to call it).
1. In my opinion, health care is a basic human right, not a privilege. That's a personal moral statement, and the least politically defensible one I can make. As such, I find it distasteful (at best) that health care is treated as a profitable commodity rather than a basic human decency.
Now, I realize it's impossible to completely dissolve the current system, which is slanted to heavily favor the bottom lines of insurance companies' financial books and which has its hooks deeply into the world of political lobbying. The thought of a single-payer system, in which everyone has access to the exact same medical plans via the exact same medical coverage, is a nice one, but it's a fantasy. It'll never happen, so we have to think in terms of what is possible. And what is possible is a public option.
2. A public insurance option would provide an affordable insurance choice, for example, to those facing a lack of comprehensive insurance coverage from their current employers. Some employers will cover vision, for example, but not dental - or vice versa. Imagine you've got two or three kids in grammar or high school ... ok kids, your choice: healthy teeth, or the ability to see clearly. One or the other! A public option could help solve issues like this.
Or, say you're currently unemployed (a problem facing almost 10% of the American workforce these days). Vision? Dental? Nope, nope. In fact, you might as well just lock yourself inside and not move around at all, because you're not covered for anything. You take the bus or subway one day to a job interview and touch a pole to hang on so you don't fall over, then you rub your eyes. Better hope you get the job, and that you don't get pinkeye! Cha-ching!
Or maybe you have what looks like decent insurance, but there are so many exclusions and deductibles that you're still kinda screwed anyway.
3. The "death squad" thing again: all this anxiety about the government telling you that you can't get care, yet insurance companies are already constantly rejecting claims on the basis of pre-existing conditions, or policy limits on the amount of coverage one can receive. "Well, Mr. Smith, I hate to give you the bad news, but you're not covered. Nobody told you to get cancer! You should have thought of that before you had to spend $10K per month for medications!"
Tell me this doesn't horrify you. It should. People should not have to choose to forgo care because the cost is so extreme.
Whatever happened to President Bush's "compassionate conservativism"? A myth from day one.
Believe it or not, I'm all for a free market, and I'm pro-capitalism, but come on now ... aren't we supposed to "love thy neighbor", or is that just convenient religious conservative lip-service? Haven't Republicans been telling us forever that "all life is sacred"? Apparently not, if you're poor. If you can't afford it, please step aside, because Mr. Limbaugh needs his pain pills and he can pay out of pocket.
4. And again, if you like your current plan, as President Obama has repeatedly stated, you can keep it. You don't have to be part of the public plan! Just smile, be happy, and let everyone else worry about themselves while you worry about yourself. Speaking of poking your nose into other people's business ...
5. I love the argument that "health care should be solely between the patient and the doctor." Actually, I completely agree with that, one hundred percent. What I really love is the hypocrisy. Like the Terry Schiavo case, for instance, in which
President Bush returned to Washington D.C. from a vacation to sign legislation designed to keep Schiavo alive, making the case a major national news story throughout that month. In all, the Schiavo case involved 14 appeals and numerous motions, petitions, and hearings in the Florida courts; five suits in federal district court; Florida legislation struck down by the Supreme Court of Florida; a subpoena by a congressional committee to qualify Schiavo for witness protection; federal legislation (the Palm Sunday Compromise); and four denials of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.
Yup, patient and doctor, strictly adhering to the grand conservative plan. Well played, guys! Nice job!
6. Public option coverage should only cover legitimate medical issues. Plastic surgery, for instance, should absolutely not be covered.
Likewise, I don't think a public option should cover abortion procedures unless the life of the mother is explicitly in danger. I say this despite my pro-choice stance. It's an issue that will be a deal-killer in congress if it's included, no doubt. I wouldn't want to risk the wide-reaching benefit of what Universal Health Care has to offer for this one single issue.
Besides, abortion is not the only option for an unwilling parent-to-be. Adoption, counseling ... there are other ways to handle unexpected or unwanted pregnancies.
I do, however, feel that abortion should be available to those who are willing to handle the procedure outside the realm of a public health care insurance option. I just don't support coverage by a public plan. Safe, legal procedures should remain available on an out-of-pocket basis.
7. Universal health care could save loads of cash for patients that could be used in the private sector for purchasing goods (food, cars, homes, clothes, whatever).
Say you wake up one morning with a nasty headache or some dizzy spells. Next morning, same thing. Maybe it goes away for a bit but comes back with a vengeance, but you don't want to risk getting plugged with an expensive bill for a doctor's visit, blood tests, maybe an MRI or some x-rays because you're currently unemployed. Who knows. So you skip going to see a doctor hoping it goes away, and that you can keep your $350 so you can pay your rent next month.
But the pain doesn't go away and eventually gets worse. On the plus side, you've managed to land a new job and now have insurance, so a couple of months after the pain started you bite the bullet, go to the doctor, and find out you have a brain tumor, and the cost to you will be, oh, let's say in the ballpark of $200,000.
But hey, it's a free market, right? The insurance company is just making an honest buck, and as the condition was pre-existing since you were showing symptoms prior to your current coverage from your new employers, why should little ol' you be covered when the company only made a profit last year in the tens rather than hundreds of millions of dollars?
Or how about if everyone could simply show up at their doctors' offices to get free flu shots? In the big picture, doesn't it make more sense for everyone to be vaccinated for free rather than for the economy to take a hit due to an overwhelming number of man-hours lost to sick time?
Doesn't it make sense to make prevention a priority rather than concentrating on curing a sickness once it's already set in? An ounce of prevention vs. the pound of cure? Anyone?
(The same argument has raged between liberals and conservatives for ... well, forever, I'd guess, regarding law enforcement. Liberals think providing social program options like after-school, or gang-prevention, or prison eduction programs are worth more because you'll nip potential societal issues at the bud, whereas conservatives would rather just wait until something bad happens and throw everyone in jail after the fact. News flash: that plan isn't working. The jails are overcrowded, and the prisoners being released at the end of their sentences are often not ready to rejoin the workforce. So they commit more crimes and end up back in jail. And the cycle continues, unending. But I digress ... that's another issue.)
************************************************************
So there you go. I hope that was all somewhat coherent.
I would like to think that Republicans would realize that they are no longer in control of the White House and Congress, and that it's for a reason: more people liked what the Democrats were bringing to the table, imperfect as that may be. You had your turn, you screwed it up. Now, unless you can come up with a better, viable alternative, please step aside and let the Obama administration have a chance to try to fulfill it's potential. If anything, despite Mitt Romney's complete about-face on the issue and criticisms about Obama's direction, Obama has already ceded too much to the Republicans and hasn't been liberal enough in pressing his plan.
I would hope it doesn't come to this, but the "signing statement" option, odious as it is, could be how this all gets decided - which is a total kick in the pants, given the President's stated desire for bipartisanship. Given the Republicans' desire, apparently, to take their ball and go home, Obama's hand might be forced. But Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and (most frequently) Bush II all used signing statements, so - in theory - the Sean Hannitys of the world should have no problem if Obama chooses this route. Hannity couldn't possibly be so two-faced that he'd be against a strategy that George W. Bush used so often simply because his successor uses it to, right? Right?
I'm not naive enough to think that I have the answer for every aspect of this problem. I'm certainly not confident that any adopted reform won't face unexpected hurdles along the way. Will there be waste and corruption? Undoubtedly there will be some. New policy tends to bring out the worst forms of mismanagement and make-a-buck scam artists one can imagine. But it wouldn't be the first time (post-Katrina FEMA trailers, anyone?), and it won't be the last. I hate to resign myself to it, but it's just the way it is. And the Democrats and Republicans will blame each other. And the sun will rise in the East and set in the West.
But if that too-hot sun on a beautiful day should cause you anything from a minor burn to severe skin cancer, wouldn't it be nice to know that your health plan isn't going to kill you if the symptoms don't get you first?
