Race vs. Health Care Reform

This article from Darren Hutchinson at Salon.com seems to be right on the money–thanks to Stuart Zechman for posting the link at Swampland.  Let’s get this done rather than focus on the possible racial motivation of Obama’s opponents.

 

9/12 Tea Party: Wingnuts on Parade or Scared and Confused?

Many commenters on the left-of-center blogs tend to refer to the “tea baggers” and the Glenn Beck followers as wingnuts or, more simply, crazy.  And some of them clearly seem to be.  But videos like this suggest something more in line with this article from this Esquire article that I linked to in my last post.

I don’t know who the young man with the microphone is, although I can guess his agenda–pointing out the faulty arguments posed by many of the protesters.  But this clip forced me to ask myself a few questions:

1. How often did I laugh or smirk at the people on the clip, especially when the interviewer calmly explained the faults in their reasoning?
2. How many of these people were actively promoting lies to serve their own agenda?
3. How many of these people were simply confused or ill-informed?
4. How many of these people grew irritated with or became ugly toward the interviewer?

It’s easy to point and laugh.  (I did, at least at first.)  It’s also easy to succumb to righteous indignation.  (Ditto.)  The guys with the Second Amendment signs and the not-so-veiled threats upset me particularly.  The comments about how Obama is really a Muslim or isn’t really African-American seem ludicrous, as do the statements about how fascism is a form of socialism and how, really, they’re all intertwined with communism.  Just looking at the Oxford American Dictionary online can tell you they are three distinct systems, but no matter.  And the man going on about how “Barack Obama” can be found in the Bible and is “deciphered” as meaning Antichrist…well, he seems like someone’s crazy uncle who’s had a few too many Scotches at Thanksgiving.

But what surprises me is how, well, nice some of these folks seem–the ones who aren’t shouting, the ones who engage in dialogue with the microphone-holding interviewer.  When confronted with an alternative point of view, they seem more surprised than defensive.  Only one person in this clip really questions the interviewer: “And you heard this where?”  The man with the “Joe Wilson for President” sign even seems apologetic when told that Wilson had himself voted for some level of health care for illegal immigrants; he completely contradicts himself by saying “I’m not supporting Joe Wilson for president” when the sign he is holding supports just that.

The woman in white who appears at around 3:10 in the clip summarizes this entire conundrum quite well.  “I was in health care for twenty years,” she says, following up with the judgment that “Medicare, as it is now, has worked very well for the populous.”  She even says she thinks Medicare could be “expanded to more of the population.”  Then, when questioned by the interviewer about a sign that reads “Bury Obamacare with Kennedy,” she laughs politely and says that, while it might sound sarcastic, “we do need to bury that whole plan.”  The idea of “Obamacare,” of course, is to expand health insurance and health care services to “more of the population.”

These folks are not evil.  They aren’t full of hate.  What they are is anxious–about big, global ideas (the economy, health care, the national debt, the power and efficiency and ethicality of government) and about issues that are more fundamental to their own day-to-day lives (their own health care plans, their own jobs, what kind of world their grandchildren will inherit).  Most of all, they are anxious about change.

This is where the criminality of some right-wing talkshow hosts and pundits comes in.  They have exploited the anxieties and fears of not only the wingnuts with the guns and the racism but also these white, middle-class, middle-aged or older folks who find the world they now live in confusing and unfamiliar.  Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, and Sean Hannity and their ilk have put up road signs for these folks to follow.  The fact that these road signs are often based on a cynical manipulation of the truth, and may lead these folks off a cliff, is ignored.

What I am afraid will happen is that these folks will be lumped in with the real wingnuts and demonized by people with a more liberal political bent, which in turn will cause the “nicer” tea baggers to become more radical and intransigent in their beliefs.

 

The 9/13 Hangover

I am thankful that I live in a country where its citizens can take to the streets in (relatively) peaceful protests like this one.  Because there are a whole lot of places on Earth where these folks would have been arrested, beaten, imprisoned and abused.

That said, I have a real problem with this “rally.”  Not because its backers are conservatives and I’m progressive in my political beliefs.  Not because I think conservatives are stupid or evil.

It’s because the rally was in large part organized by Dick Armey’s Freedom Watch and Glenn Beck, both of whom have cynically manipulated some genuine concerns (and some irrational fears) into a furious mob.  This mob doesn’t know what it stands for–only that it stands against Obama.

Why?

Because he’s a Nazi, a socialist, a communist, or sometimes all of them at once.  (Which doesn’t make logical sense–it’s just an attempt to stick the vilest labels to the man in order to demonize him.)

Because he’s going to “take away our freedoms.”  (Like what?  No matter–he just is, and we’re not going to let him.)

Because he’s going to take over health care.  (Go back and read his speech from last Wednesday, then look at his actions since January 20, and you’ll see he doesn’t want to “take over” health care any more than he wants to take over Mexico–he wants to fix the current system.  Debate all you want about the manner in which he wants to do so, but debate honestly.)

Because our taxes are going to go up.  (Which isn’t true in the short term but will likely be inevitable in the long term as a result of the past 8 years of economic policy which erased a huge surplus, gave substantial tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, and saddled us with an enormous debt.)

Because he lied to us.  (What did he lie about?  I still haven’t heard anything that doesn’t conflate “I think he’s wrong” with “He’s a liar,” which are two very different things.)

All of these seem to boil down to the following:

Because Barack Obama, a black man, defeated the Republican nominee for president and therefore gets a shot at promoting his agenda rather than a Republican one.

I understand feeling frustrated, even angry, in the context of having my candidate lose and seeing an opposing political ideology take control of Washington.  I’ve felt that way for most of the past eight years.  But this anger goes beyond that.  It taps into some darker aspects of our national psyche–a fear of blacks, for one thing, and of change, fears so strong that they overwhelm rationality and become knee-jerk reactions.

By all means, hold our elected officials responsible, from the president down to your local city councilman or woman.  Enter into a vigorous national debate about these issues.  Exercise your constitutional rights and vote for the candidates you support, and let all elected officials know where you stand.

But again, do it honestly.  Calling attention to the fact that our deficit is enormous and arguing that too much government regulation may be stifling to innovation and efficiency is one thing.  Engaging in fear-stoking rhetoric, and shouting “You lie!” at the President during a Congressional address, and comparing President Obama with the Joker is another.

If you want an example of the kind of honest debate I’m talking about, look here:

Granted, the “angry mob” title is probably misplaced rhetoric: this looks like less of an angry mob than it does a gaggle of concerned citizens.  But this is what political discourse should be in our country.  Instead, we get this:

And this.  And this.  And this.  And especially this.

Rachel Maddow got it right when she spoke about this kind of rhetoric:

Part 1

Part 2

 

“Government Can’t Do Anything Right”

One of the memes that’s brought up in the current health care debate is that the federal government can’t run anything well, so why would we want to turn health care over to the feds.

There’s no question that the federal government is not the most efficient body on the earth.  And there are lots of examples of government waste–look at some of the contracts given to companies like KBR in Iraq, for example, or the cost of a toilet if purchased by the Pentagon.

But I find the notion that the government “can’t do anything right” to be pretty simplistic and incorrect.  It’s an expression of ideology rather than reality.

For nearly thirty years, we’ve heard how government is the problem.  Ronald Reagan famously said that, and like many people alive when Reagan was president, I believed him because I liked him.  Now that I’m older I’m rethinking a lot of what I once believed.  The current GOP, especially the anti-tax Grover Norquist wing, insists again and again that the federal government cannot do things well except in the area of defense.  It’s a default position that is a bit dishonest.  Instead of explaining a belief that the federal government should be restricted in its power due to a reading of the Constitution, for example, many people just declare government to be bad.

The problem is, if a political party that expresses as one of its core beliefs the limited value of the federal government comes into power for a length of time (say, the past eight years), then this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Why would we want people who think government doesn’t work well–indeed, express a fervent belief that government shouldn’t work well–to run the government?

I believe there are GOP senators and representatives who want to make government work.  But many GOP members, including their leaders and the right-wing talking heads in the media, continue to beat the drum of “government can’t do anything right.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell spoke disdainfully about the “cash for clunkers” program recently, which has proven so popular and successful that it is about to run out of money.  Instead of seeing how this initiative is actually working and stimulating a widespread purchase of automobiles–an industry that recently had to close large numbers of dealerships, prompting howls of indignation from the Republicans, among others–McConnell and other GOPers call the program poorly-managed because it’s run out of money.  But if it ran out of money because the widespread demand was far, far higher than anyone anticipated, and the program is doing what it was planned to do, is this the same thing as poor management?

Another argument I’ve heard is, “Do you want the same people who run the DMV to be the same people that run health care?”  Considering the DMV where I live, in north metro Atlanta, my response would be, Well, yes.  I don’t have to go to the DMV very often.  When I do, I’ve waited in line no longer than 15 minutes, I’ve found the people there to be courteous and helpful, and it’s no more of a hassle than when I visit the local branch office of my bank, or the grocery store.  The post office can be a hassle, but that’s more about waiting in line, something Americans really don’t like.  And of all the thousands of pieces of mail I’ve sent through that system in my lifetime, I can only think of one or two instances when mail was lost or delivered very late.

Okay, but those are isolated examples, you might say.  Fine.  How about the military?  The federal government seems to run that pretty well.  And the health care system our military has is a public plan and delivers much better quality care than private insurance plans.  Don’t believe me?  See Bill Kristol admit as much to Jon Stewart here.  Ask seniors how they feel about Medicare and Medicaid.  Think about who builds and maintains our roads, our public libraries, our police and fire stations.  I’ll even add our schools…and while many public schools are bad, imagine if tomorrow all of our public schools closed, permanently.

The fact is that government can do a lot of good.  It should not do everything, by any means.  The historic examples of governments that run everything are not encouraging–fascism and communism are not viable options in the 21st century.  But government can, in fact, do things well, if we the public pay attention to what government is doing, elect officials who work for us and not corporate interests, and intelligently debate the issues.

 

Single-Payer Wish List

Here’s something I found on TIME’s Swampland blog (see comment #20.1–thanks, pirate wench) that clearly outlines the idea of a single-payer system that has been so demonized that it hasn’t even been on the discussion table in Congressional committees.  I’ve paraphrased a bit.

1. We need to talk about transitioning to a single-payer INSURANCE system.
2. You would be covered 100% for medical, dental, vision, etc.
3. You would no longer pay insurance premiums.
4. You would no longer pay deductibles.
5. You could see whoever you want, whenever you want, wherever you want (subject, of course, to the doctor’s availability…but no outside agency would be determining who you could or could see–no “in-network” or “0ut-of-network” issues).
6. You and your doctor would make all of your medical decisions.  The single-payer system would make no medical decisions–they would only handle payments.
7. You would have insurance regardless of whether or not you were sick or well, employed or not.
8. Your taxes would rise to pay for this.  However, this would be offset (and in many cases more than offset) by the lack of deductibles, premiums, and other out-of-pocket medical expenses.

Is this too wacky to even consider?

I realize that the devil you know may be more desirable than the devil you don’t, but the devil we know that is the current health insurance system doesn’t work like it should.  Tinkering around the edges of health insurance won’t work.  If the engine of your car is broken, replacing the tires doesn’t really help.

 

Postcard from Iran IV

(This e-mail was passed along to me from an acquaintance in Iran.)

This is going to be a slightly disjointed email, I’m sorry in advanced. It’s already well past midnight here and we just finished returning from the streets protesting. But I wanted to make sure to get this out tonight

Today marked the 40th day anniversary of the killings of such youth as Neda Agha Soltan and Sohrab Aarabi in Iran’s post-election demonstrations.  We headed to Behesht Zahra Cemetery in the afternoon to join the 4pm ceremony at their gravesites.  Behesht Zahra is about a one hour drive south of Tehran and as we neared the cemetery, about five police cars and officers were directing traffic.  Waiting to enter the cemetery compound in the traffic, one of my companions pulled down the window and half jokingly asked the police officer what was going on.  He smiled back and said, “nothing, just go towards row 257.” For those not familiar with Behesht Zahra, it’s an enormous cemetery with wide avenues and squares. Knowing it would take us a while to find our destination, the police officer decided to help by telling us in which row we could find Neda’s grave (others in Behesht Zahra would help lost drivers by directing them to Neda. That’s all people said: “Neda ounjast” (Neda is there), pointing in the direction of her grave).  Throughout the ceremony it was obvious the police force was very sympathetic with the people (as opposed to the anti-riot police and the revolutionary guard factions that were present in large numbers and were standing by the graves of both Neda and Sohrab).

By the time we arrived to their graves, it was 4.30pm and about 150,000-200,000 had gathered there.  Most had on green ribbons and shouted in unison: “Neda-ye ma namordeh, ein dolat-e ke morde” (Our Neda is not dead, it is this government that is dead).  Her grave was covered in flowers and candles, as was the grave of Sohrab, just a few feet away.  The demonstration was held about 75 feet from the graves and was where the majority of the people had gathered. The main difference between this gathering and the other gatherings in the past two months was that the slogans for this gathering were very highly charged and at times extremely revengeful. People shouted: “ma bache-haye jangim, bejang ta bejangim” (we’re the children of war, fight and we’ll fight back); “mikosham ani ke baradaram ra kosht” (I will kill he who killed my brother).  There was no more talk of reclaiming the vote, but of getting rid of this “coup” government; the most numerous chant was “Death to the dictator.” The anger could be felt at this gathering (which for me was a very ominous sign of worse things to come) and there was a very palpable lack of fear among people.  Both Mir Hossein Moussavi and Karoubi had shown up at the gathering earlier in the afternoon.

We stayed for nearly two hours and decided to leave when we saw the security forces getting larger in number. As we left, we heard that they had hit some with batons and we could feel the tear gas in the air. A few minutes later reports emerged that Jafar Panahi, the award-winning filmmaker was arrested, as was Mahnaz Mohammadi, a documentary filmmaker and a women’s rights activist. They have both been taken to an unknown location.

As we left the cemetery, the honking of the cars began: most cars were heading into Tehran to try to get as close to Mosallah as possible (the large mosque in central Tehran where Mousavi and Karoubi had asked to hold a ceremony of those killed last month—the interior ministry did not give the permission for the gathering, but people had decided to show up there at 6 regardless).  Every car driving out of Behesht Zahar was honking their horns and all drivers and passengers had their hands out of their cars in the peace sign.  The police tried to discourage drivers from driving the main highway that would lead to central Tehran, but very few listened. Soldiers standing along the streets flashed the peace sign back at the honking cars with large smiles on their faces.  It was obvious the soldiers and police forces were with the people.

As we reached my grandmother’s house, which is just a few streets away from Mosallah, we saw people running from motorcycles (the Basij), who tried to taser them, and the protestors encouraged us to turn our windows up so the tear gas wouldn’t hurt us.  Residents came out of their homes and began small fires on the corners (to help against the tear gas).  The streets were completely overtaken by protestors who were in a cat and mouse game with the security forces, all on motorcycles.  We parked the car and went onto Valiasr Street (the main boulevard in Tehran that runs from north to south).  The city was covered in a haze from all the tear gas and fires started on the corners.  All roads leading to Mosallah were witness to huge confrontations between people and the security forces.

As we arrived on Valiasr people were spilt on different sides of the sidewalk: one side would shout slogans, the anti-riot police would attack with their batons and paint-ball guns (to mark the protestors to pick them up later), then the other side of the side-walk would start the chanting, so the anti-riot police would be forced to come to this side. As they attacked one side of the sidewalk, the protestors on the opposite side would come out of the side streets they had just run into and gather, regroup, and chant again.  This continued for hours.  When the anti-riot police disappeared for a bit, people lit candles and put them on the sidewalks, to commemorate the deaths of Neda, Sohrab, and the others.  At one point we had managed to cover one section of the street in candles. As soon as the plainclothes militia saw the sidewalk lit in candles, they approached, stomped them out, and began hitting people.  No one turned away.  They would attack us, we’d run into the side streets and reemerge less than one minute later.  The most haunting scene was when protestors had gathered at the beginning of Takht-tavvos Street and were shouting “Death to the Dictator.” The anti-riot police gathered on their motorcycles (two per motorcycle, all in cameflouge uniform, with full riot gear) in the middle of the street and their leader began pumping them up (it looked like a huddle during a football game—it was disgusting). He got them riled up, spun his baton in the air three times, and then they attacked (there were about 30 motorcycles, all in full gear). As they attacked the protestors in the street, some from the side began throwing stones at them, and all began cursing.

The anti-riot police would also drive up in cars and try to get people to move along and not congregate. People would walk slowly, then turn right back around.  There was no more fear.  They attacked, people retreated in the side-streets, then would come back out in less than one minute as soon as the motorcycles had gone off.  There were so many protesters, and they were spread out all throughout Tehran (Valiasr Square, Fatemi Square, Yousefabad, Vanak Square, Mosallah, Sanati Square, Amirabad, Revolution Square, Tajrish Square….all the main streets and squares of Tehran were full of people and it seemed for the first time that the forces simply were not enough).

The security forces were using batons, chains, whips, tasers, paint-ball guns, and I saw handguns in the hands of three of them.  There was a rumor that a few were shot at in Vanak Square.  Two people were picked up near us and people tried to chase after the security forces to get the young men back, but it was a futile chase.  Until around 11pm the streets were full of people.  At 10pm the shouts of Allah-o Akbar and Death to the Dictator were being screamed from the rooftops all over the city until 10.30pm.

Friends in Isfahan also reported that 4-5,000 people had gathered there and there were no security forces at all present This was the first such gathering on a large scale in Isfahan since the first week after the election. Reports also came of gatherings in the thousands in cities of Rasht, Shiraz, Mashad.

People of all ages, sexes, and socio-economic groups were out today. We ran into many at the cemetery who had driven in from the provinces to attend the 40th day ceremony. Religious men and women were numerous at the gravesite, as were non-religious men and women. Children were out (at one point on the street back in Tehran I saw a group of two brothers and one sister, the youngest about 7 and the eldest 14, walking hand in hand down the street). Middle aged and older people would turn to us and say “we’re out on the streets for you guys, this is for your future, for your generation.”  One mother told a soldier who asked her to go back home “I’m not going anywhere. Don’t you know that we brought you guys into power by doing just this: by being out on the streets for nights on end. We brought you to where you are today, and we’re going to take you out by being on the streets. I’m not going anywhere.”

 

Health Care Reform–Where Is It?

If current trends in health care costs continue, Americans will see their health care bills grow, on average, at twice the rate of inflation. This same link from KaiserEdu.org also pegs employer-sponsored health care premiums as having increased 119% since 1999.

This is unsustainable.

We have some of best doctors and some of the best medical facilities in the world in the U.S.  Our medical personnel and physical infrastructure, by and large, are not the problem.  Our system of health care and health insurance is the problem.

Critics of health care reform argue that the U.S. has the best health care in the world.  They are incorrect.  They are conflating the doctors/facilities with the system.  Our system is broken.

And what is keeping us from fixing it?

1. A political system that favors the entrenched status quo over reform; that in the Senate gives undue power over health care reform to a handful of individuals (Baucus, Conrad, Grassley, Bingaman, Enzi and Snowe) representing 3% of the population and no major urban areas; and that is unduly influenced by millions of dollars’ worth of political contributions by health insurance companies.
2. Right-wing talking points that are patently false, including: “ObamaCare” will force you to give up your current health care; one of the bills currently under consideration will force seniors to participate in counseling sessions about euthanasia; reform equals socialism; government cannot possibly run a health care system, when in fact Medicare is just such a program.
3. A line of argument with two prongs that are contradictory: government-run health care will be poorly-run and unsuccessful; and private insurance companies will fail because they will not be able to compete with such a poorly-run and unsuccessful program.

There is a lot of room for intelligent debate on this issue.  But the public debate takes place up in the clouds of theory and ideology or down in the mud of shameless protectionism of special interests.

In the meantime, our health care costs spiral upwards.  They are increasing far beyond the rate of inflation.  The quality of the services isn’t improving.  The costs increase due to a for-profit motive that crosses the line into greed and a largely inefficient system that rewards the number of procedures over the health outcome of the patient.

It’s boring stuff.  Michael Jackson’s funeral and the surrounding media circus was far more colorful, as is the Gates-Crowley-Obama imbroglio.  Our attention is drawn to the bright shiny baubles of Jessica Simpson’s breakup with Tony Romo or The Game’s feud with Jay-Z.

In the meantime, we get sicker.  We suffer from a pre-existing condition called mortality.  And we’re paying far more for it than any other industrialized nation in the world, with little to show for it.

We need health care reform that allows us to keep the health care we have if we want it.  Which is what President Obama is calling for, despite what some talking heads and wingnuts proclaim.  Go to the President’s website, or look for what he has said on YouTube.

We need health care reform that brings down costs and is more efficient.

The government can help to do this.  It doesn’t need to run the whole show.  It just needs to reform the system, regulate it, and offer a public option.  Unfortunately, we probably won’t get this.  But we need reform.  Or we’ll bankrupt ourselves and our nation.  And that’s not in anyone’s best interest.

 

“President Palin” in Perspective

Regardless of how you feel about Sarah Palin–patriot or fruitcake, maligned mother or talking-point queen, straight-talking governor or word salad chef–the now well-known story about an e-mail exchange between her and Steve Schmidt, McCain’s chief campaign strategist, is suggestive of how Palin reacts to criticism.

On the one hand, you can use this as evidence that Palin uses whatever means necessary to cast herself as a victim and to condemn any kind of criticism.  On the other, you can read this as evidence that the stress of the 24/7 campaign cycle was getting to her.

However, the story shouldn’t go away, and not just because it indicates the fractured nature of today’s GOP.  Chris Bodenner (guest blogging for Andrew Sullivan), who quotes Peter Suderman from Reason.com, has a devastating insight into how a President Palin might react when dealing when certain world leaders.  It’s so simple it’s surprising I haven’t read it somewhere else before now.  But maybe I don’t read enough blogs.

 

SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings = Kabuki Theatrics

So the Senate confirmation hearing for Sonia Sotomayor is going about as expected.  Patrick Leahy warned GOP senators not to be rough with Sotomayor, a rather silly statement that was largely ignored, although the Republican senators were for the most part civil.  Jeff Sessions tried to paint Sotomayor as inherently biased and therefore unqualified.  Lindsey Graham condescendingly told Sotomayor that he didn’t think she would have a meltdown.  John Kyl talked about Sotomayor’s love affair with “foreign legal concepts.”  Orrin Hatch used his time to wag his finger in a shame-on-him moment regarding then-Senator Obama’s voting against confirming Alito and Roberts.  For the Democrats, Herb Kohl pursued Sotomayor’s feelings about abortion rights, while Russ Feingold tried to get her to talk about limits on Executive power.

In other words, a lot of what was discussed at the hearing was theatrical rather than substantive.  Wanting to understand how Sotomayor would rule as a Supreme Court Justice is natural, but we won’t know until she gets there.  Remember John Roberts at his confirmation hearing suggesting that legal precedence has an almost holy sanctity about it?  For what happened after he put on the black robe, read Jeffrey Toobin’s excellent article in The New Yorker here.

For a good idea of the mindset of these hearings, read these two threads from TIME’s Swampland blog (“Playing Good Cop/Bad Cop with Sotomayor?” and “Sotomayor’s Aristotle“)and see what the commenters–especially Sotomayor’s critics–focused on.

It’s all theater.  Sometimes it’s engaging, but is there not a better, more responsible and effective way to do this?

Meanwhile, you have to admire Yglesias’ straightforward take on the whole process:

“I still in an honest-to-God, no-joking way don’t understand why conservatives who want to vote ‘no’ don’t just say something normal like ‘I thought Justice Souter voted the wrong way on a number of important cases, I think Judge Sotomayor is likely to vote in a similar way to Souter; I would prefer a judge who votes like Justice Roberts or Justice Scalia; therefore, I’ll vote no.’ That’s not insane, it’s not offensive, it’s not foolish, it’s not bizarre—it’s something you’d have to respect.”

 

Meet the Family

This Rachel Maddow link courtesy of Swampland poster sgwhiteinfla is frightening and suggests much of what is wrong with radical elements of today’s GOP. Imagine if this group professed belief in Apollo and what public reaction would be. Please watch.