A rare political post
The United States is going through some hard times, I know, but lately I've been getting the feeling that it is on the edge of true insanity. I don't really have much to add to the 'debate' but there are a few things I've been reading about that I thought I'd collect in one place, with a few profound yet amusing comments interspersed.
The nicest thing I can say about the tone of the right's opposition to the health care bill is that it has been one of childish anger based on ignorance, and I'm sure you've read about the racist, anti-gay insults shouted at Democratic Congressmen. That's all covered here.
But now I'm reading about multiple death threats against Democrats who voted for the bill. Is this some kind of joke? I can't judge how much this is typical of the mood in the Republican party or among conservatives, or if it truly is a fringe group, but it's certainly out there, even among prominent conservatives. Such as this, from one of the party's rising stars:
A Sarah Palin page on Facebook incorporated gun imagery in urging people to organize against 20 House Democrats who voted for the health care bill but represent districts where the John McCain-Palin ticket won two years ago. Palin's post featured a U.S. map with circles and cross-hairs over the 20 districts.
There are also, of course, threats from your ordinary anti-abortion fuckhead against an anti-abortion Congressman. I don't know which of these is worse. This one:
"I hope you bleed ... [get] cancer and die," one male caller told the congressman between curses.
Or this one:
A fax with the title "Defecating on Stupak" carried a picture of a gallows with "Bart (SS) Stupak" on it and a noose attached. It was captioned, "All Baby Killers come to unseemly ends Either by the hand of man or by the hand of God."
(You can read more here.)
Are people really looking at violence in response to a new law that, while it will eventually make health care moderately more accessible, is business friendly, does not fundamentally change the current system, and completely abandons any pretense of a government-run health care system? As IOZ so eloquently puts it:
I won't spend a lot of time reiterating old arguments, but it does bear repeating that the US House of Representatives just based a bill universally mandating that individuals purchase a private commodity--a commodity, let's be clear, that the same bill goes to great lengths to keep private. A so-called "public plan" is exactly the opposite of what this bill is, and the idea that public insurance will somehow flow naturally from its own nemesis is either crazy, a lie, or a crazy lie.
This is what conservatives are saying is infringing on their freedom. Has the concept of freedom been reduced to the right to do what we want with out money, without obligation, responsibility or concern for the consequences. Have Americans allowed themselves to be reduced from citizens to consumers? There is a saying along the lines of, "I don't mind paying taxes - it buys me civilization." The consequences of failing to do so have never been more frighteningly clear than now, as the United States show signs of moving further and further away from what I could consider "civilized."
(For more criticism of the bill from the left, take a look at this conversation with Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader. Or this from Chris Hedges.)
On a slightly less dangerous note, New York City is making significant cuts to its transit system. There is talk of raising the base cost of a ride to (gasp!) $2.50. Well, it's $3 in Toronto, so you still have some catching up to do - and NYC's system is actually efficient! But I saw a quote from Michael Bloomberg that made me wonder how much worse things are going to get there:
At a news conference, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg warned New Yorkers to “save your anger” for the authority’s next set of cuts. “This is just the beginning,” the mayor said. “The next round, I would think, would be much worse.”
There is violent anger against a moderate change in health care while American cities and states make cuts to services like transit, libraries, and schools. Taxpayer dollars are used to subsidize Wall St. banks while essential government services are reduced. Is it just me, or is the anger slightly misplaced? I've never been accused of having too much faith in people's intelligence but there are people in the United States who seem to want some kind of bizarro revolution, in which the people rise up to fight for the rights of the aristocrats.
Update: In fairness, I should point out this article I just saw, which reports that tea party organizers are attempting to distance themselves from some of the less sophisticated opposition to whatever it is they oppose.
Like I said at the beginning, I don't have a big conclusion or philosophical statement to put out there, so I'm going to have to end without a flourish, if that's OK.
7 comments:
Thoughts on abortion aside (I also don't believe it is right in just about every scenario, although there clearly are scenarios where it is either necessary or makes sense. I just think many people use it as "the easy way out," but I'm getting off the point...), I agree the debate, if it can be called that, is getting out of hand. I have to admit that I did not read the bill myself, so to say that I can comment intelligently on it would be a fabrication, however I can state the following: arguments made against the bill tend to reduce to at best simple ad hominem, and at worst base fear-mongering. Most arguments against the bill don't make any sense: they play off of base fears and other silly things that have no place in public discourse. To counter those arguments, we have the examples of far more socialized health care systems in other countries that have, on average, better health care outcomes than the US. Clearly such systems can't be all that bad. Of course, this leads to the most deplorable silent objection to the system -- silent because no one in his right mind would attempt to give it voice, yet it is there behind every insidious syllable uttered by the "elite" -- which is the following: yes it is true that, on average, our health care system has worse outcomes than many socialized systems. However, if you are a person of means, our outcomes and technology are, by far, the best in the world. There are many who don't want to give that up. There is much to lose when a well of blood money is about to dry up. I think this last point is an example of pure, naked capitalism in all its cruel glory. I'll leave the "capitalism as a political extension of darwinism" argument aside for the moment...
However, there is one area that, at least technically, I agree with the argument against the bill. In the U.S., health insurance is a commodity. Note that I am not arguing that it should be a commodity, only that it is. The health care bill stops short, to my knowledge, of instituting fully government-subsidized health care, though it does come damned close. Because of that, it can be successfully argued that forcing one to pay for it is wrong. Frankly, they should have just gone the full boat on this one and yanked the entire system, although I shudder to think of what craziness might be happening had that been the case given the nonsense that is happening now!
Lastly, there is the capitalism-darwinism argument again. Does it make sense to let the chips fall where they may (survival of the fittest) when it comes to health care? On one hand the obvious answer is "no, of course not! How dare you suggest such a thing?!" But think for a moment, we are putting ourselves in a situation where, very soon, the world population will be at levels which cannot be sustained...is it truly ethical, on a planetary scale, to be extending life expectancy at such a time? Nihilistic, I know, but it's a hard question that needs to be asked...and not just in the american health care debate.
another comment -- I think there are a good many people angry over the wall st. handouts, it's just that the people who are upset about these things tend to be a bit more restrained and subtle than those who carry a shotgun and shout "not in my backyard!" at the top of their lungs. Obviously the latter are making noise about health care. Frankly it would be funny if it wasn't so frightening.
Well I don't agree with your Bart killing policy, but I do agree with your Selma killing policy.
My point was more about the reaction to the legislation than the contents of the bill itself, which is little more than a subsidy to insurance companies (though because of the moderate improvement to people's lives, and the political stakes, I'm glad it did pass). But it was disturbing to see accusations of totalitarian-style government against a bill that was passed (small "d") democratically with a majority of both houses of Congress, entirely legally, and with every opportunity for opposition, negotiation and compromise. The Republicans chose to shout with voices of insanity instead of offering constructive input to make the bill truly bi-partisan, or simply to have their opinions taken into consideration. And let's not forget that the bill as it passed, having dropped, most notably, a public option, was already a compromise of a compromise of a compromise, and is neither radical nor 'socialist'. I might have been in favour of a 'socialist' plan (along the lines of a Canadian- or European-style system) but that was never even on the table to begin with. And let's not forget the USA already has government-subsidized healthcare, through Medicaid and Medicare. This new bill isn't even as radical as those – it just says people must purchase health insurance, along the lines of car insurance I guess.
As for abortion, the attacks against Bart Stupak were just stupid. Here's a guy who's anti-abortion and went out of his way to have guarantees in place that no federal money will be used to go towards abortions, to make sure that he was not compromising his principles by voting against this bill, and he is still attacked and called 'baby killer' by opponents of the bill. It was an unfortunate example of the ugliest and most ignorant aspects of American (indeed, Western) society. It's not even about 'abortion' per se, just the stupidity of people looking for something to shout at.
Interesting what you say about [social] Darwinism – if someone is that irresponsible that they can't keep control of their own reproduction, should they really be raising a child? In this case there's a strong argument that abortion's the right choice. Perhaps the world is better off if they don't bring another unwanted child into the world, who would just use up more resources – environmental, government assistance, etc. – that are becoming increasingly scarce as the years pass.
According to the UN, the United States has the 38th highest life expectancy in the world, at 78.2. That's behind such notables as Cuba and Costa Rica. You'd think that would be enough impetus to make some serious changes. Of course, it wasn't, because the debate was entirely political, which is why I've gotten increasingly frustrated with politics lately – it has no concept of truth or honesty or right vs. wrong.
So, as a conclusion, I declare that, regardless of ideology, wealth, desires or interests, people are stupid.
It's a salient point you raise that the bill was debated, voted on, and passed according to the process afforded by U.S. law; yet some are shouting as if they had no part in the discourse. I can't explain it other than to suggest that the noise being made is entirely partisan and frankly has no teeth.
Yes the real point is that not nearly enough was done. If healthcare was to be truly reformed, private health insurance should've been done away with completely. I think I can say with some degree of certainty that at least one senator's head would've exploded if that bill had passed, however.
...and yes, people are indeed stupid.
another point: it's true that the healthcare outcomes are on average worse than they are in many other countries. However, in the U.S. where money can buy you just about anything, if you have the means, healthcare is the best in the world. I'm not saying that's right, I'm just saying that's the way it is. Honestly, I would say that is one of the most powerful motivations for the arguments against the bill.
Your last point is a good one I forgot to mention, that all other things aside, if you have the means in the USA, you can get the best health care there is. It's also true in, say, Canada, though to a lesser extent, since the most advanced technology is a little harder to come by. But you also get the reverse effect in the States, with cities like Washington, that have awful infant mortality rates.
And this bill isn't going to change anything for people with the means to buy the best healthcare. The market will be the same as it's been, but now with another 32 million people or whatever having the govt buy their insurance for them. Or a small business they work for.
to your last point...precisely, which means that we are going to have basically the same healthcare system, only with more people eligible for providers to bill against! It can be boiled down to the following: an increased transfer of funds to healthcare providers via government mandate. Of course, the bill is supposed to address this with provisions such as a mandated universal electronic health record and health care oversight with actual teeth. I work in health care I.T. and as for the first point, I'll believe that when I see it...while I'd rather not provide details online, suffice to say I have very good reason to believe that this is a far more difficult and massive undertaking than anyone is expecting. As for the second point, said teeth will likely vary by presidential administration.
I suppose although this does amount to another transfer of funds, if you are taking the "glass half full" view you could at least say: "perhaps this will buy, at the very least, a better quality of life for a least a few more people."
Then again, as you say isn't that what we already have with Medicaid?
Post a Comment