As I'm watching this Health Care debate play out, I can't help but think there's a real discussion going on here, but it's just not playing out in words. The debate about health care seemed to be going the Democrats way until about 2 months ago. Once the polls started to soften on support for a bill, and the GOP started to block progress, the momentum shifted. Then the fun started.
Activist groups, led by Rick Scott, Dick Armey, Betsy McCaughey, and the rest of the "do nothing, we're #1!" faction started to put their plan into action to kill the health care reform efforts.
But to kill health care reform, you need a bogeyman. Ted Kennedy just wasn't cutting it. So why not go for the race card, and (in the words of Robert Shapiro), play it from the bottom of the deck?
Go for the big cheese. Obama himself. After all, he doesn't look like you! He's got Hillary running State, Sotomayor running the Supreme Court, and Holder running Justice. Pretty soon, he'll have you standing in front of Death Panels, justifying your right to live. And he wasn't even born in this country! And did you know he's a secret Muslim, when he isn't busy paling around with terrorists, and did you see what his Pastor said during the campaign ads last year!?
It's small wonder that anyone who doesn't like where "this country is going" from a demographic standpoint would be more susceptible to such an argument. If you notice, who has been shouting down all of these town halls? I have noticed a stark dearth of color in these movement groups. Suddenly, a lot of people (many of whom are on Medicare NOW!) hate government health care, and don't like the idea of it. But listen to what they say. It's not that they don't like Government health care, it's that they don't like OBAMA health care. Interesting, isn't it?
These cries of "socialism", and "I want my country back" just make me sad. After all, democracies have elections, and the winners put their policies in place. The losers cry and howl, but in the end, understand that they have rights and protections. There were no disruptions of town halls, and threats to lawmakers (swastika signs spray painted on Congressmen's signposts), or people coming to Presidential Town Halls, with loaded guns during the Teri Schiavo case (by the way, a loaded gun!? seriously!? I wanted to ask that guy yesterday, "are you out of your mind!? Do you really think any one's going to be allowed to bring a loaded gun into a room with the President?")
In the end, this is about one thing. This issue (health care) is just the latest in a series of events that have shown that there is a contingent of Americans who hate the idea that their team (the White Males) have lost the majority of the power. They hate the notion that this country is growing, but it's growing through increases of Hispanics, Asians, Indians, and even Muslims (if you can really count a religion the same way you can count national origins).
The sad part is, this country has ALWAYS been one to change and grow in different directions. The Irish were not welcomed with open arms. Nor were the Italians. I would need a whole different blog to describe how the African Americans were welcomed to this country.
And now, the country is going to take a new direction, one where Whites still may hold the largest plurality, but one where their hold on leadership is checked and diminishing.
But to a group of people in this country, the Health care Debate symbolizes ALL of these frustrations--with losing power status, with seeing a President who is more of a citizen of the world than his predecessors, with leadership that is more demographically mixed, with leadership that is more secular in nature--and these town halls give people a chance to channel all of these frustrations in a way that allows them not to have to appear racist.
To these people, I say, "sorry Charlie". You can dress up the language, you can try to change the topic, but your words don't match the deeds. Yelling and disrupting the town halls, hasn't actually been about debating the health care system. No one seems to be yelling anything constructive. It's all be yells about government, Obama, control, etc. It's about not wanting the "black man", the "bogeyman" take over our most precious possession--our personal health.
To me, it's sad to see. Because Health Care really is a topic we need to debate. I'm not sure I love every part of the bill, and I may regret supporting health care reform in 5 years, should it pass this year. But I like the fact that my President is trying to come up with a plan to make health care a right for everyone. And I will support it and him.
So to THAT end, here's my message to the following groups:
To the Democrats--pass the bill this year. Do it through a vote, reconciliation, or whatever means necessary. Don't be cowed by this, or you are guaranteed to lose your seat. Because you'll lose every Democrat who voted for you, and the Republicans who cheer your vote will vote for one of their own too.
The alternative to a yes vote is nothing. And that's just unacceptable. While you're at it, get out to talk to your constituents with a message of why this vote HELPS THEM! Enough with the town halls. Give a speech instead.
To the Republicans--be careful what kind of party you are running. If you're going to go to bed with the dogs, be prepared to wake up with the fleas. For those of you comfortable with Sarah Palin, Orily Taitz, Rush Limbaugh, Rick Scott, and Rick Santorum leading your party, have at it. You'll be in the minority for years to come.
To the Media--call a spade a spade (pun intended). All of these signs with the swastikas, the hammer and sickle, etc. It's important to show what kind of people are attending these rallies on the side against reforming health care. Ask yourself why these groups don't look like all of America, just one section of America?
To the anti-Obama team--"I want my country back?" It was never YOURS to begin with. And the days of White, Anglo-Saxon Protestantism are gone, if they ever really existed to begin with. You may even get 4 more years of such leadership, sometime in the next 10 years. But in the long run, you're going to have to face some sobering truths. You will not be the majority demographic going forward. You will not have the power. And while I'm at it, some more straight dope. America's domination of business and economics will erode in the next 20-30 years. It's not because we aren't doing as well. It's simply that the rest of the world will catch up. The Internet makes all things possible now. It's just reality. You can scream at the tides to stop coming in, or you can plan for changes, and prepare yourself for a different reality.
Somehow, I don't think this is a group of people who will listen to me...
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
Funny, I was at Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill's town hall meeting. Race has nothing to do with this debate. There is no need to attribute a complex racial component to the outrage of health care bill opponents. The vast majority of American's don't concern themselves with race. Not every opponent of Obama is a racist KKK member. An idiot showing-up to a meeting with a gun is just that, an idiot.
Keep it simple. The most obvious answer, often times, is the answer. Occam's razor: "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."
The simple answer is this: People don't trust the politicians and the government. It's that simple. And why should they? Each party tries to prove they are more corrupt and incompetent than the other.
You want health care reform? Fine. Everyone has to pay. Don't sell a fantasy about only the rich paying. Like social security, it comes off the top regardless of income. To sell it, your employer can simply pay on your behalf, like they do through premiums. The millions who can afford, but chose not to buy, are now paying premiums. The government option will be Medicaid for those who lose their jobs. Get a job? You go back to the private plan.
Don't let the government run it. They will screw it up. (See 20% Medicare fraud.) Give people the choice between multiple private insurers. They feel more comfortable.
The current plans are a fiasco. My proposed framework is an honest and open and can solve the problem. This, from a conservative.
excellent rebuttal. However, Medicare seems to be providing good service, and is increasing FAR more slowly in costs than the private sector. I'd be curious to know what the fraud numbers are for public companies who provide health care, and I'd suggest to you that a 20% fraud rate has been estimated to be more like $60B a year in fraud by sources I've read. While not a great number, I'd suggest that it's not 20% of claims outstanding...
And sadly, all we see in the media coverage of the town halls are people who are NOT shouting that they hate the health care proposals, but that it's "socialism, marxism, etc", and that "Obama's a Nazi". If we ever heard any Senators or Congressmen actually trying to present the issue in this way, perhaps we could have a real discourse.
In the end, I'll give health care legislation a 50/50 shot of ever passing the congress in its current forms (all three of them). Democratic leadership has all the spine of a wet noodle, and in the end, they'll either water this thing down to nothing, or simply "defer" the issue to next year anyway.
The problem with politicians is their underlying goals. A politician's job is to get elected first, and to represent the will of the people second.
The healthcare proposal is not the right answer. It's just a good enough answer to make some change, and keep the Dems in office.
Either socialize medicine entirely, or... require the health insurance companies that exist pay for the uninsured (and then require that all employers must buy health insurance.) subsidize the existing companies rather than creating a governmental run entity.
Compare the efficiency of USPS to FedEx or UPS. Not even close.
To the last commenter--Excellent points! Sadly, though, I think the whole point is that the debate you just laid out isn't really being considered. The people objecting are not recommending things like what you have laid out. They are arguing for NOTHING. They just want to yell and scream. And that's just a guarantee of things getting worse and more expensive in health care for everyone.
As for the comparison of efficiency of USPS to FedEx or UPS--how do you know that they are less efficient? Do you have a study? I'd suggest anyone who makes the same argument that CIGNA or UHC is as efficient as Medicare in handling claims is patently incorrect, yet people will say it just because they think so.
Please post the study that shows FedEx and UPS are more efficient...
You are an idiot.
Why do you need a study to demonstrate that UPS or FedEx are more efficient? They make a profit...the USPS loses $7B a year....pretty straight forward. On the other hand, you make up out of whole cloth your argument about the race card....therefore, you are a hypocrite.
There are a multitude of reasons for NO GOVERNMENT OPTION. Medicare and Medicaid lose billions a year, and NOTHING the government does comes in on or under budget. THEY DO NOTHING WELL BECAUSE THERE IS NO FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY. Pretty straightforward and easy to understand if you have a clue....
Read Atlas Shrugged and you will see what will happen in less than 20 years if the current mentality keeps up. When America ceases to be America, then we (the people that produce) will find another place to call home and come back in kick your asses. Check out this link from a "brother" in both a black sense and a real life perspective sense.....myrmadon....
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/7/white-people-gonna-riot-825433.html
Actually, if you read my earlier posts, I have read "Atlas Shrugged", and found it to be a fascinating study of Socialism. I agree with some of its aspects. I even discussed it a few months back, here on the Pundit site.
I'm still wondering, however, how the parallel of a public option on health care equates to a "slippery slope" theory. Every other first world nation has a national health plan. Are they all socialists? Our allies in Britain are socialists? The Swiss? Canada? etc? These countries all lack the drive and creativity of America? Perhaps, but if all the smart people of this country decide to "go galt", where are they going? Atlas Shrugged was a good book, but remember, it is just that...a book. a story. Something to influence your thinking, not drive it...
As far as FedEx goes, they lost $876M last quarter too, so they may not be quite the model of efficiency you proclaim.
Plus, they don't have the burden of general snail mail, and a postage stamp that has gone up about 25 cents in the past 20+ years. Let's remember that this is the same mail system that actually runs pretty well. You can make fun of postal workers if you wish, but remember, these people are your I can track packages. I can drop a letter to anyone in the US on Monday for less than a buck, and it gets there before the week's out. It'll go faster if I pay more.
And there's "PRIVATE" options, if I need even greater efficiency, and have the cash to afford it. Sounds like a model to build off of for health care, no?
It is easy to equivocate 1/7 of our economy to a slipper slope....it is 1/7 of the economy.....If you socialize that amount of the GDP, you are not on a slippery slope, you are sliding down with a jet engine attached to your back. The other countries you have mentioned are facing TREMENDOUS problems with their healthcare...and they are not even comparable to the US in any way economically....do you read anything but The Daily Kos?
What Americans (or any other nationality for that matter) are running to the UK, Canada or Switzerland for their healthcare? Having the best costs more, just like everything else.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=FDX - this is the fed/ex link. If you could read an income statement, you might notice the $1.2B non-recurring expenses that OFTEN happen in very large companies. Do you expect people not to do research like you don't....c'mon, you can do better than that! Of course you didn't quote UPS because they made $401mm last quarter without the non-recurring deduction. And for your information, that non-recurring loss is GREAT for tax purposes.....oh those evil rich, using the tax code to their advantage.....;-) GREAT FOR THEM!
Your snail mail argument is idiocy...no need to comment.
Your last paragraph is another bit of trite horse manure (to put it lightly). The government will never outperform the markets. Remember, private entities have to generate a profit, and government entities NEVER do (mainly because they don't have to, it can print money, they have unlimited authority to tax your ass, and the people running them have no accountability or desire to perform a worthy service). If a business owner (and I am one) has the choice to pay $1000 for the private plan or $500 for the public plan, what will I do? Send my employees to the gutter with the public plan BECAUSE it's cheaper (for every reason that a Ford Focus is cheaper than a Mercedes)?...It has EVERYTHING to do with quality of care. However, the public option will run at a deficit of $1TRILLION over 10 years (and I will get taxed to make up for that) OR the private company will make a profit (and I won't have higher taxes). I would choose in a heartbeat the private option because my employees would get better care, and I won't pay more in taxes.
I don't feel guilty that people have made a series of choices that have either made them unable to afford health insurance or they have chosen not to buy it because they are healthy. I don't believe that check ups and routine doctor's visits should be covered under any insurance (just like tune ups, oil changes and tires are not included in auto insurance). However, I think catastrophic coverage should be the norm. A $5000 deductible and 100% coverage after that is $5000/year for a family of four. If you can't afford that, you need to cut off your cable, get a cheaper car, work another job, stop eating out, mow your own grass, downsize your house, keep your thermostat at 76 and not tax me to death because they don't want to make sacrifices.....you get the point, which goes back to my initial point that people are in the situation they are in based on a series of choices they have made.....life sucks, get over it.
PS....Have a nice day!
Let's take a look at some of your points (and I will be civil, as I know you are only adding the personal attacks because you care... :))
1/7th of our economy? Yep, that's about right. Of course, Medicare and Medicaid are already government-insured (let's remember what we're talking about here. Government Insurance OPTION, not Government CARE. Different things. You can disagree on your opinion of what kind of consequences that could lead to, but you aren't entitled to the facts. You DON'T know what kind of cost assumptions are built into the plan, mostly because I'm not sure it's even been built!).
Those "other countries" I mentioned are not having the kind of costs vs. patient outcomes that we are facing. They have better results. And I'd suggest that our health care cost burden on the average american is a pretty heavy burden as well.
Your point about the non-recurring deductions at FedEx is soft. Lots of companies use that line as a free hall pass for whatever they can get away with. However, the point that FedEx is a vibrant, successful company (which it is, as is UPS), in the face of government competition only bolsters my argument, not yours. That private companies can compete with a public option provides all of us with the best choices for healthcare, and may even help to keep costs under control? What a CONCEPT!!!
I kind of liked the snail mail comment. funny. You can call me an idiot (my wife does sometimes too!), but it doesn't really help your argument.
Again, the horse manure comment was pretty creative (oh, I forgot! I'm not much of a Daily Kos fan. It's a little disorganized for me. I'm more of a combination Drudge, Politico, 538.com, HuffPost, WSJ fan. You know what blog I like too? www.electoral-vote.com. It has good stuff on upcoming races, and I'm always a sucker for colorful maps! Although admittedly, I don't get as much time to read WSJ as I'd like these days!).
To your point about health care being less expensive in the public option, if you're saving $500 to put people in the cheaper plan, are you sure you won't get that value back? As long as we're talking about P&L's, I thought the bottom line was what mattered? Do I care if the $500 is put towards taxes or additional health care costs? After all, Medicare costs have gone up far slower than private companies over the past 45 years, and I don't recall any Republicans, Democrats, or ANYONE else voting FOR Congressman Weiner's "Repeal Medicare" ammendment put forth recently in the House. I suppose EXISTING public health care's going to bankrupt us, but I don't hear your ruckus to repeal Medicare...
Your last paragraph just saddens me. It completely disregards the notion that good people are getting hurt more and more in this system. It's true that some people are overspending on things like Cable TV or whatever. It's also true that far more people have the unfortunate sadness that comes with a child with autism, or a spouse with cancer, or perhaps even both. These people deserve a chance at decent health care coverage. Be careful what you wish for in these matters, lest you yourself end up with a bill from the doctor for your $5,000 colonoscopy, which saved your life, but your insurance company said it wasn't medically necessary.
If you truly are a small business man, I'd actually love you to send me a post (I'll post it! I have for others) on what kind of tax structure we should have for small businesses. I'll take my shots at it...
PS--You have a nice day as well. All this excitement, and that bad burger I ate for dinner, is making me want to lie down!
Wow, this is fun....
You are wrong about the option, Obama himself said he favors a single payer, but it may take "15 to 20 years"...so let's be honest here, incrementalism is a very powerful Liberal tool. The reason there is any debate at this point is because people have actually read the bill...not elected officials mind you, people like you and me....
I don't know what results you are talking about with the other countries...if life expectancy is your only parameter, you may be right, but that is not the only measure of effectiveness. Remember, Americans are about individualism and "don't tell me what to do, I will live my life like I want." We eat less healthy, our prosperity has bred laziness, and even though we are the best fed in the world, processed food has made people fat (hence high blood pressure, diabetes, stroke, etc).
The FedEx point could not be more valid (again, you don't understand balance sheets). You are wrong about the profitability of private enterprise bolstering your argument. You get what you pay for with the postal service, but that is mail, not your health. Apples and oranges.....no one gives a crap if it takes an extra day to get the mail, but if you have to ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY have to have it there overnight, you don't use the USPS....same if you have cancer or diabetes or autism...you don't want the USPS of healthcare.
I am sorry I sadden you, but I live in the real world. Life is tough and then you die. If I have a colonoscopy, I should pay for it, even if I have to pay the hospital $100/month for 50 months.
My small business makes its obscene profits helping very wealthy clients take advantage of the tax code to keep and protect their wealth. I like the tax code fine the way it is because it suits my interest. If it changes, my business model will change or I will start another business. Just call me crazy, I look for opportunity and exploit it for profit. I know....I know....I am evil, but I sleep well at night at my lake house......;-)
PS I ALWAYS trust that I am a better steward of my money than the government, no matter what the circumstance....you know why? It's my money......
Actually, I think the ability to exploit a profit is just fine (although in your case, I might consider using other language in your marketing materials...). Although if I take your comments to heart, I'll have to write to the AICPA, and turn in my license!
The last time I looked, I have a job, in the private sector, a family, and I have not served any time.I work hard, pay my taxes, send my kids to public schools, save for their college education, etc. I think that's enough to make me comfortable that I live in "the real world"
To your point about the Colonoscopy, if private insurance will put someone between you and your doctor to deny coverage of this "non-essential" procedure, then why even have the health care insurance in the first place? Your suggestion that people should pay premiums that rise about 8-10% a year (as mine has), only to be denied coverage for procedures that are clearly in the scope of covered services, is a proper set up, and that this represents the free market in its best light, is a point we'll just have to disagree on, I guess.
I hear ya....when I talk about the tax code, I help my clients avoid taxes, not EVADE....those are very different beasts and one involves prison....;-)
It's funny, I always hear about these "denial of coverages" but to be candid, I have never had a personal account of one, and I have worked in group health insurance before and been a part of insuring tens of thousands of lives....
Anyway, I believe that for the most part, our system works well, but I think that people have the improper perspective of what health insurance should be (see my previous posts). You should take care of routine health care out of your own pocket, and insurance is there for something catastrophic...you cannot have it both ways (meaning I want everything paid for AND it's just too expensive). I say to the people "Choose one or the other and shut up."
Until people take personal responsibility for their EVERY action, we will continue to move ever quickly toward mediocrity.....
Re: Fairly priced and readily available health insurance coverage for everyone.
The "neutral" and cost efficient way to make fairly priced health care available to everyone, is to insist on a few basic points:
First, if you are in the health insurance business you must make all of your products available to all applicants.
Second, your health insurance offerings must be priced within a range such that your highest priced product is no more than (say) 150% of your lowest priced product.
Third, no subsidiary or related companies may offer a product with a different pricing structure.
Fourth, no medical provider may refuse to accept coverage from a health insurer licensed in the USA.
Five, product differentiation is allowable. This means different levels of insurance are allowable. I'll come back to this point.
Six, medical professionals must be given protection from malpractice to the extent that their actions resulted from known conditions and that their actions reflect needs for immediate judgment calls. Accidents happen, and to claim liability without evidence of unforgivable carelessness is to profit at the expense of a greater good (lower medical costs for everyone).
From a competitive standpoint, the insurers that want to deal with the lower half of America's economic populace will come up with plans that cover the insured parties for basically all common and frequently seen injuries and illnesses. But will provide limited coverage for ailments associated with drug abuse, alcohol abuse, or injuries sustained during commission of a crime. Othe insurers will step in with plans for the upper middle class and stratified levels of society.
Going back to point number five, not everyone drives a Rolls Royce, not everyone lives in a Mansion and not everyone can afford the same level of medical care. If insurance company A wants to offer insurance that will cover 90 days of care at the Betty Ford Clinic for substance abuse problems and Daily Psychiatric Counseling they will find a market for their product in Malibu, Hollywood, Scottsdale, Aspen, Manhattan, Greenwich, etc. But that does not imply that I should receive the same level of care.
If I sustain a head injury as the result of an accident and am comatose and essentially brain dead, it should not be the responsibility of a hospital or an insurer to keep me alive at its expense. It is not wrong to put reasonable limits on health care coverage, nor is it wrong for some people to have more expansive limits than others. Certainly not if they can afford the more expansive limits. If otherwise, we would surely have to conclude that our elected officials deserve no better protection than our indigent addicts. Incidentally, I would be pleased to argue that case on behalf of the indigent addicts.
Excellent points, all. Let's see how it all plays out. Public option in? Public option out? Co-ops? Nothing? We'll see in a few weeks...
Post a Comment