I have been talking with people who support the supposed “healthcare reform” lately, in an effort to discern exactly why some people support it. Through these discussions, I’ve discovered that the majority of people I’ve talked to support healthcare reform for one of two reasons: They either disagree passionately with the status quo of high insurance premiums, insurance companies taking advantage of people simply because they can, and millions of uninsured people going bankrupt to pay bills due to these problems, OR, they believe that the Democrats must have their best interests at heart because they are, well, Democrats. Since the latter group is arguably not worth the effort to attempt to dissuade from their opinions, I will address the former in this publication.
While I agree wholeheartedly that the status quo simply sucks, and that reform is crucial at this time, I am still unconvinced that your chosen route of reform is in any way a solution to the problems you are railing against. Yes, health insurance reform (whether it be single-payer, co-op, government option, you name it) would definitely insure some, or all, of the uninsured this country now sees. I don’t disagree with that. We even might see some initial improvements in the cost of healthcare - Obama reportedly persuaded Big Pharma and some hospitals to drop their costs by a certain percentage. HOWEVER, I don’t pretend to know why people assume these “fixes” will be permanent, or even maintained for any length of time.
First of all, having health insurance does not automatically make you immune to high healthcare costs. Having insurance can offset these costs, but I can say from experience that a large hospital bill, even when offset by having insurance, has an uncanny ability to break the bank of less-fortunate people (of which I am one). So simply making insurance more available, or even more affordable, will not prevent millions of people from having huge deductibles they need to pay but have no means to pay, or from having a large medical bill that is only covered 50%, leaving them thousands to pay out of pocket.
On that note, one of the big issues I’ve heard thrown around reform discussions is the fact that insurance companies have a “benefit cap” - as in, after a person uses a certain amount of the insurance company’s money (say, on chemotherapy) the insurance is void. This concerns many, many people who are sick or have a sick child, spouse, etc. But what makes any of them think that a government-regulated industry, especially one that simply includes a government-option, would not have this cap? The people who are affected by this “cap” would still end up without insurance for a period of time, until they could find another company willing to take them.
In addition to that, I’ve heard people say that “free healthcare” is a “human right” and that the government ought to be providing it anyway. Well, I hate to disappoint people, but these reforms will NOT be “free”. Obama’s plan to tax the higher-level income recipients is only one part of the plan - it still leaves the program an estimated 80 billion short. Where will that money come from? It could come out of program cuts in other areas (schools, roads, etc.), or it will eventually come out of raising taxes on everybody, not just those who make more than 250,000 a year. Either way, the cost hurts everybody. Liberals need to take a step back and listen to their idealistic selves - We all know that things cost money. And whether we like it or not, healthcare costs money (although the amount it costs, as anybody who has read my opinions before knows, is highly debatable). And also, people tend to forget that the government is not some business that is functioning independently or has unlimited funding to toss around as it pleases; every cent they spend is OUR money, being allocated by US for them to disperse. Nothing the government provides is “free”, people.
Speaking of money, one little claim keeps popping up every time I try to discuss my personal stance on this matter (which is: lower healthcare costs, not reform insurance companies). People who support the reforms on the docket right now insist that Obama IS “lowering the costs” of healthcare, as per the aforementioned agreements to cut costs by pharmaceutical companies and hospitals. Unfortunately, this too is a bit of a farcical belief.
We’re going to crunch some numbers here. Obama’s deals, with hospitals and insurance companies, were touted as an agreement for them to cut their costs. But were they, really? Unfortunately not. For example: According to the Huffington Post, Obama’s deal with Billy Tauzin, the president of PhRMA, included an agreement that pharmaceutical companies would reduce their profits by 80 billion dollars. On the surface, sounds pretty neat. BUT, that deal is extended over ten years, first of all. That’s only eight billion a year. In addition to that, if one actually looks at the numbers for the projected amount that pharma companies expected to increase their profits in the same amount of time, it added up to 3.6 trillion dollars. Obama’s deal to limit their profits by 80 billion, out of a 3.6 trillion expected net profit, adds up to him cutting their profits by 2%. Two stinking percent.
Even stinkier than THAT, however, is the fact that Obama also made a deal with hospital lobbyist Chip Kahn, allowing hospitals to RAISE their prices, by six trillion dollars, over the next ten years. This was also touted as a “win” for reform, however, since the deal cut the profits expected by the hospitals by 155 billion (a grand total of 2.6 percent).
Thanks for looking out for us little guys, Mr. President. You really stuck it to them.
It isn’t just the fact that the healthcare reform on the table is expensive, or smells a bit like leftover lobbyists. It simply is not conceptually going to work. The fact that I have reiterated time and time again in these postings, that the reform on the table focuses almost solely on insurance reform and uses that as a blinder for the fact that it does literally next to nothing to address the actual healthcare system, is what is ultimately going to cause it to fail. The insurance companies are NOT the problem, and until we address the actual problem, of insanely and indefensibly expensive healthcare, no reform will truly fix this problem.
8/18/2009
Repairing the band-aid: Wasteful? Yes. Surprising? Not particularly. Stupid? Spectacularly.
Contrary to what one might think by reading my previous few postings, I do support healthcare reform. However, I am incredibly skeptical of the path our “reform” is heading down, for a myriad of reasons. Not the least of which is the fact that I am utterly confused. I got the distinct impression last year that Obama wanted to reform healthcare, but… Maybe I was mistaken. Or misguided. Or stupid, like the administration obviously hopes the majority of people are (but if we’re being honest, they’re correct in that assumption), because what is being presented to the American people as a comprehensive healthcare reform is decidedly NOT what it is claimed to be.
The President won the 2008 election toting his “healthcare reform” package, that included the goal of lowering costs and eliminating bureaucratic waste. He then handed the package to Congress, basically in an effort to let them fight out the “nuts and bolts” of the reform. This thrilled liberals to the point of breathlessness. But of course, not everybody supports healthcare reform. The majority of people seem to believe some type of reform is necessary, but agreeing on what type is a difficult task. Then there are those who believe the industry works as-is (but these are usually the people who already have good health insurance or are making money off of the industry), there are those who believe that any reform (i.e. any change at all) is inevitably a bad thing that is to be avoided at all costs, and then there are those who refuse to work bipartisanly on issues simply for the sake of principle… The reasons why people would oppose Obama’s plan to reform healthcare can go on and on. There were initial efforts to oppose the plan, mostly by insurance and industry lobbyists, but none of these efforts really came to the forefront of the domestic concern – most people were generally willing to “wait and see”. But as the bills were drafted, and people began hearing murmurings of their contents, right-leaning politicos and bipartisan fearmongerers began grasping at all possible aspects of the emerging details to exploit. Then, as a result of more concrete options being presented, all the hysteria get more and more, well, hysterical. Congressional members couldn’t agree, couldn’t meet their timetables, couldn’t pass a bill by the time they recessed… Americans waited for details to emerge about the new legislation, some with Christmas-morning-esque excitement and others with something resembling horror on their faces. Americans were waiting for solid policies to form and be presented to them, before they chose which side they were ultimately on.
And many are still undecided. The bills are on hold until September, but in the meantime, antics have ensued. The cacaphoneus townhall meetings, the whirlwind Obama speaking circuit, the media commentators/fearmongerers – they all have pushed this issue to the forefront of the domestic agenda and beyond. “Healthcare reform” is the big talking point these days, a point that is traveling progressively further from its original context. In 2007-08, Obama talked to no end about how expensive healthcare was. How lobbyists were driving the prices of care too far up, and how “healthcare reform” was his top priority. Fast forward one election, and we are currently on the verge of reform, but not of healthcare reform. No, now we have health insurance reform. Obama himself admits it. At his rally last Friday in Belgrade, MT, he allowed the point to be made, and agreed with it, that his proposals would not reform healthcare, but health insurance.
Where did this cowboy switch horses? Mid-stream, or way upriver? Obama’s “healthcare reform” changes very little about healthcare itself (or, depending on the plan chosen, nothing at all). Instead, his “healthcare reform” dictates to health insurance companies, a private, for-profit industry, what they can and can’t do. It tells employers what they can and can’t do in relation to providing for employee healthcare. It could possibly end up telling individuals what they can and can’t do with their money at the end of the month. Does this look like healthcare reform to anybody? Is there even the smallest amount of hope that this wasn’t Obama’s plan all along? What happened to lowering healthcare costs enough that insurance premiums go down to the point that they are actually affordable for the average person? What happened to wading through the wastefulness of the hospitals, the Medicare and Medicaid systems, and many other programs, so that money isn’t being (literally) flushed down the toilet? While I don’t agree wholeheartedly with this concept, what happened to capitalism, for goodness sake? Why focus on repairing the band-aid when he could actually heal the wound?
Years ago, health insurance wasn’t necessary. Surgeries were not 50,000 bucks a pop, a bottle of pills was not gouging $100 out of an elderly woman’s S.S. check, and doctor’s visits were covered privately through an agreement between the provider and the patient. But now that malpractice insurance has skyrocketed for providers to avoid being sued, now that hospitals have become more like businesses than caring service providers, now that BigPharma and medical technologies abound on the political scene, patients and small providers are getting screwed - while big business profits. The business of medical care costs more, thus there are fewer people able to pay out of pocket for it. Which, in turn, created the niche for insurance companies. Insurance companies were never the problem – they were the ill-conceived initial solution to the problem of healthcare prices.
Healthcare needs the reform. Health insurance needs to be left alone to deal with the consequences of the reform. Healthcare itself needs to be less expensive – with lower costs, premiums inevitably drop. More people can afford them. It really is that simple. Obama and his minions would like people to believe that it has been the insurance companies all along, charging too much and making a bundle off of needy peoples’ diseases and accidents. Unfortunately, if that were the case, things would be a lot less difficult to fix. Obama’s plan might even work. But that is not the case. Health insurance companies do make a very large profit, but they do so because they are filling a niche made specially for them by the healthcare industry. If people could afford healthcare - which seems like a basic concept but in the past few years has become more and more laughable – they would not need insurance to bleed their paychecks every month. They would not have to gamble a percentage of their money away on the bet that they will get sick (a macabre gamble even under the best of circumstances). Healthy people could use that money to pay a monthly stipend to a general practitioner in the case of common complaints, and save some in a “health fund” as a cushion for the rare times when they do get sick. Sicker people would have a tougher time with this, but if the government is willing to spend all our tax money giving drug addicts and welfare moms coverage, can’t we extend that coverage to cancer patients as well?
My basic question to the Obama healthcare team is this: If we are so concerned with overhauling healthcare, why aren’t we overhauling healthcare? Why are we allowing advantageous businesses and bureaucrats to get rich while the patients and little guys are suffering? Why do we allow the hospitals to charge $24 for an un-eaten meal served to a patient who didn’t request it? Why do we allow doctors to send MRIs out of the country to be read, at the patient’s expense? Why do we allow the indiscriminant waste to build and build in the medical profession (which is the industry actually providing what liberals refer to as the “basic human right” of healthcare), while chastising a private industry like insurance, that has no right-to-service requirement, for capitalizing on that waste?
I believe in healthcare reform. I don’t believe “Obamacare” (although I hate that moniker) does anything to reform healthcare. Once the public realizes this, however, it will, in all likelihood, be too late to stop the freight train of reform bearing down on the insurance companies.
The President won the 2008 election toting his “healthcare reform” package, that included the goal of lowering costs and eliminating bureaucratic waste. He then handed the package to Congress, basically in an effort to let them fight out the “nuts and bolts” of the reform. This thrilled liberals to the point of breathlessness. But of course, not everybody supports healthcare reform. The majority of people seem to believe some type of reform is necessary, but agreeing on what type is a difficult task. Then there are those who believe the industry works as-is (but these are usually the people who already have good health insurance or are making money off of the industry), there are those who believe that any reform (i.e. any change at all) is inevitably a bad thing that is to be avoided at all costs, and then there are those who refuse to work bipartisanly on issues simply for the sake of principle… The reasons why people would oppose Obama’s plan to reform healthcare can go on and on. There were initial efforts to oppose the plan, mostly by insurance and industry lobbyists, but none of these efforts really came to the forefront of the domestic concern – most people were generally willing to “wait and see”. But as the bills were drafted, and people began hearing murmurings of their contents, right-leaning politicos and bipartisan fearmongerers began grasping at all possible aspects of the emerging details to exploit. Then, as a result of more concrete options being presented, all the hysteria get more and more, well, hysterical. Congressional members couldn’t agree, couldn’t meet their timetables, couldn’t pass a bill by the time they recessed… Americans waited for details to emerge about the new legislation, some with Christmas-morning-esque excitement and others with something resembling horror on their faces. Americans were waiting for solid policies to form and be presented to them, before they chose which side they were ultimately on.
And many are still undecided. The bills are on hold until September, but in the meantime, antics have ensued. The cacaphoneus townhall meetings, the whirlwind Obama speaking circuit, the media commentators/fearmongerers – they all have pushed this issue to the forefront of the domestic agenda and beyond. “Healthcare reform” is the big talking point these days, a point that is traveling progressively further from its original context. In 2007-08, Obama talked to no end about how expensive healthcare was. How lobbyists were driving the prices of care too far up, and how “healthcare reform” was his top priority. Fast forward one election, and we are currently on the verge of reform, but not of healthcare reform. No, now we have health insurance reform. Obama himself admits it. At his rally last Friday in Belgrade, MT, he allowed the point to be made, and agreed with it, that his proposals would not reform healthcare, but health insurance.
Where did this cowboy switch horses? Mid-stream, or way upriver? Obama’s “healthcare reform” changes very little about healthcare itself (or, depending on the plan chosen, nothing at all). Instead, his “healthcare reform” dictates to health insurance companies, a private, for-profit industry, what they can and can’t do. It tells employers what they can and can’t do in relation to providing for employee healthcare. It could possibly end up telling individuals what they can and can’t do with their money at the end of the month. Does this look like healthcare reform to anybody? Is there even the smallest amount of hope that this wasn’t Obama’s plan all along? What happened to lowering healthcare costs enough that insurance premiums go down to the point that they are actually affordable for the average person? What happened to wading through the wastefulness of the hospitals, the Medicare and Medicaid systems, and many other programs, so that money isn’t being (literally) flushed down the toilet? While I don’t agree wholeheartedly with this concept, what happened to capitalism, for goodness sake? Why focus on repairing the band-aid when he could actually heal the wound?
Years ago, health insurance wasn’t necessary. Surgeries were not 50,000 bucks a pop, a bottle of pills was not gouging $100 out of an elderly woman’s S.S. check, and doctor’s visits were covered privately through an agreement between the provider and the patient. But now that malpractice insurance has skyrocketed for providers to avoid being sued, now that hospitals have become more like businesses than caring service providers, now that BigPharma and medical technologies abound on the political scene, patients and small providers are getting screwed - while big business profits. The business of medical care costs more, thus there are fewer people able to pay out of pocket for it. Which, in turn, created the niche for insurance companies. Insurance companies were never the problem – they were the ill-conceived initial solution to the problem of healthcare prices.
Healthcare needs the reform. Health insurance needs to be left alone to deal with the consequences of the reform. Healthcare itself needs to be less expensive – with lower costs, premiums inevitably drop. More people can afford them. It really is that simple. Obama and his minions would like people to believe that it has been the insurance companies all along, charging too much and making a bundle off of needy peoples’ diseases and accidents. Unfortunately, if that were the case, things would be a lot less difficult to fix. Obama’s plan might even work. But that is not the case. Health insurance companies do make a very large profit, but they do so because they are filling a niche made specially for them by the healthcare industry. If people could afford healthcare - which seems like a basic concept but in the past few years has become more and more laughable – they would not need insurance to bleed their paychecks every month. They would not have to gamble a percentage of their money away on the bet that they will get sick (a macabre gamble even under the best of circumstances). Healthy people could use that money to pay a monthly stipend to a general practitioner in the case of common complaints, and save some in a “health fund” as a cushion for the rare times when they do get sick. Sicker people would have a tougher time with this, but if the government is willing to spend all our tax money giving drug addicts and welfare moms coverage, can’t we extend that coverage to cancer patients as well?
My basic question to the Obama healthcare team is this: If we are so concerned with overhauling healthcare, why aren’t we overhauling healthcare? Why are we allowing advantageous businesses and bureaucrats to get rich while the patients and little guys are suffering? Why do we allow the hospitals to charge $24 for an un-eaten meal served to a patient who didn’t request it? Why do we allow doctors to send MRIs out of the country to be read, at the patient’s expense? Why do we allow the indiscriminant waste to build and build in the medical profession (which is the industry actually providing what liberals refer to as the “basic human right” of healthcare), while chastising a private industry like insurance, that has no right-to-service requirement, for capitalizing on that waste?
I believe in healthcare reform. I don’t believe “Obamacare” (although I hate that moniker) does anything to reform healthcare. Once the public realizes this, however, it will, in all likelihood, be too late to stop the freight train of reform bearing down on the insurance companies.
8/09/2009
Undermining democracy is best left to the professionals...
Its funny… President Obama’s approval rating is lower than any president’s ever has been during the first 9 months in office, there are protests every day against his policies, against his fast-tracking of very important, very sensitive issues that deserve an awful lot of consideration, and his administration still proceeds as if they have the eighty-some percent support they had six months ago. To top that off, his party is accusing the American people of undermining democracy. I honestly never saw that coming. I feared, when Obama was elected, that the growing dissent that was brewing just underneath the surface of the American psyche would faze itself out, re-assured by Obama’s presence that things would be “back on track” soon. I feared that his promises of change would blind people to the fact that the change may not necessarily be for the better. Well, apparently I underestimated my fellow countrymen, as many have awakened to the nasty little lies we’ve been told on the topics of healthcare, the war, and freedom of speech. What does surprise me is how unfettered Obama’s administration has been by the wide-spread and resounding “Stop!” that the people of America have been shouting at the tops of their lungs.
It shouldn’t surprise me, really. I’ve been aware of the death grip the country has been in for years now, knowing that it is nearly impossible to get any un-slanted news from any source, period. I am painfully cognizant of the strangle-hold the governmental institutions have on freedom of speech, freedom to gather peacefully, freedom to criticize the government... Yet I still find myself mourning yet another new-found awakening – now that Obama is in office, it can not only be called un-patriotic to criticize the government, but now one can be accused of being racist, as well. This has happened to me personally, last fall while I was debating Obama’s campaign with Obama supporters. I explained to them that I could not be racist – I originally supported Obama. At the time I shrugged off the attack as a desperate attempt to justify intellectual inadequacy. But the thought that, upon his election, government dissenters could be accused of, and possibly silenced by, being “racist” for some reason never entered my mind. Until now.
Of course, the accusation of racism is only one vehicle by which this administration is exerting control over the American population, and it is admittedly the only unique one. Every administration has used similar tactics to control dissent – from Eisenhower’s anti-communist rhetoric to George W. Bush’s claims that “if you aren’t with us, you are against us” on the topic of terrorism. However, just because the government can accuse a person or group of undermining this-or-that doesn’t mean that they are correct in that assertion. In fact, it usually means just the opposite. It is obvious that the government expected this type of backlash rather soon into its new administration, since it was only one month into Obama’s time in office that he ordered a report on domestic terrorism. The report came back claiming that “right-wing extremists” were the biggest possible problem for the country, the biggest and most dangerous of all being “libertarians, war veterans, and right-wing internet and talk-radio commentators”. Seems a bit fishy that the administration ordered this report and it came back with those findings, seeing as how the majority of the newsmedia has since been consistently reporting on how damaging Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones and many others have been who routinely criticize Obama's administration, and now the protests at the healthcare townhalls are being labeled “libertarian” protests, even when they are usually a gentle mix of all affiliations.
Obama has been insisting on his healthcare reform package being moved at lightning speed through the usually sleepy process of Congressional committees – Why? Even though he claims he just wants benefits for all Americans as soon as possible, even those involved in the bill-drafting process have admitted that the first Americans won’t even see benefits from this legislation until well into 2013, many not until 2017. So, what is a few months’ delay compared to that? Why rush a very sensitive and life-changing bill through when a little consideration and time might make the difference between an effective reform and a disaster? Because Obama doesn’t want to give the Congress (which has a shocking 11% approval rating at this time) the chance to listen to their constituents, that’s why. If the members of Congress believe that their voting bases are against this bill, they just might kill it in committee, or on the floor. That is why they were urged to pass it before they recessed for the summer – They would be less likely to have to face the giant opposition to it face-to-face. Ignoring a letter in the mail or inbox is one thing, blocking out a giant, seething mob yelling at you to “read the bill!” is quite another.
Fortunately, Congress didn’t pass the bill before they recessed. Unfortunately, the protests against it are being hailed as “extremists” taking advantage of the attention being drawn to the townhalls, and the tactics being used are critiqued as being ridiculous, childish, and yes, even racist. Those taking their concerns to the meetings, using the media coverage as an opportunity to awaken others to the blatant criminality of the fast-track system, are being lambasted and brushed off as extremists, conspiracy theorists, and right-wing uber-conservative racists. Nevermind the mothers who are there wondering whether government-run health insurance will cover their autistic child’s medications or special education, or the terminal patient angry that government insurance may not cover their hospice. These people can be ignored, they are not indicative of a real dissent against the policy, I suppose… They are just a bunch of crazies, right, Obama? No sane person would dare be skeptical of you, the “cool, intelligent, well-spoken President”, or your policies!
I am ashamed that I underestimated the American population in recent times. I expected them to sit back and watch themselves be led down the wrong path, too blissfully enraptured in the cult of personality surrounding Obama to notice that the same old tirade was going on as has been going on for decades now. But as more and more people are standing up and saying, “Hey! This is NOT what I voted for!”, I am proud that they are paying attention, but terrified that there is obviously not much that their attention to - and passion about - the issues is going to prevent. Apparently our system is no longer set up in such a way that dissent even by the majority is tolerated. George Bernard Shaw once claimed that democracy is a vehicle that ensures that a population is governed no better than it deserves. As timely and poignant as that statement was and is, unfortunately I believe that claim has been superseded by a new assertion: That regardless of the appearance of democracy, tyranny will always find its pretext.
It shouldn’t surprise me, really. I’ve been aware of the death grip the country has been in for years now, knowing that it is nearly impossible to get any un-slanted news from any source, period. I am painfully cognizant of the strangle-hold the governmental institutions have on freedom of speech, freedom to gather peacefully, freedom to criticize the government... Yet I still find myself mourning yet another new-found awakening – now that Obama is in office, it can not only be called un-patriotic to criticize the government, but now one can be accused of being racist, as well. This has happened to me personally, last fall while I was debating Obama’s campaign with Obama supporters. I explained to them that I could not be racist – I originally supported Obama. At the time I shrugged off the attack as a desperate attempt to justify intellectual inadequacy. But the thought that, upon his election, government dissenters could be accused of, and possibly silenced by, being “racist” for some reason never entered my mind. Until now.
Of course, the accusation of racism is only one vehicle by which this administration is exerting control over the American population, and it is admittedly the only unique one. Every administration has used similar tactics to control dissent – from Eisenhower’s anti-communist rhetoric to George W. Bush’s claims that “if you aren’t with us, you are against us” on the topic of terrorism. However, just because the government can accuse a person or group of undermining this-or-that doesn’t mean that they are correct in that assertion. In fact, it usually means just the opposite. It is obvious that the government expected this type of backlash rather soon into its new administration, since it was only one month into Obama’s time in office that he ordered a report on domestic terrorism. The report came back claiming that “right-wing extremists” were the biggest possible problem for the country, the biggest and most dangerous of all being “libertarians, war veterans, and right-wing internet and talk-radio commentators”. Seems a bit fishy that the administration ordered this report and it came back with those findings, seeing as how the majority of the newsmedia has since been consistently reporting on how damaging Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones and many others have been who routinely criticize Obama's administration, and now the protests at the healthcare townhalls are being labeled “libertarian” protests, even when they are usually a gentle mix of all affiliations.
Obama has been insisting on his healthcare reform package being moved at lightning speed through the usually sleepy process of Congressional committees – Why? Even though he claims he just wants benefits for all Americans as soon as possible, even those involved in the bill-drafting process have admitted that the first Americans won’t even see benefits from this legislation until well into 2013, many not until 2017. So, what is a few months’ delay compared to that? Why rush a very sensitive and life-changing bill through when a little consideration and time might make the difference between an effective reform and a disaster? Because Obama doesn’t want to give the Congress (which has a shocking 11% approval rating at this time) the chance to listen to their constituents, that’s why. If the members of Congress believe that their voting bases are against this bill, they just might kill it in committee, or on the floor. That is why they were urged to pass it before they recessed for the summer – They would be less likely to have to face the giant opposition to it face-to-face. Ignoring a letter in the mail or inbox is one thing, blocking out a giant, seething mob yelling at you to “read the bill!” is quite another.
Fortunately, Congress didn’t pass the bill before they recessed. Unfortunately, the protests against it are being hailed as “extremists” taking advantage of the attention being drawn to the townhalls, and the tactics being used are critiqued as being ridiculous, childish, and yes, even racist. Those taking their concerns to the meetings, using the media coverage as an opportunity to awaken others to the blatant criminality of the fast-track system, are being lambasted and brushed off as extremists, conspiracy theorists, and right-wing uber-conservative racists. Nevermind the mothers who are there wondering whether government-run health insurance will cover their autistic child’s medications or special education, or the terminal patient angry that government insurance may not cover their hospice. These people can be ignored, they are not indicative of a real dissent against the policy, I suppose… They are just a bunch of crazies, right, Obama? No sane person would dare be skeptical of you, the “cool, intelligent, well-spoken President”, or your policies!
I am ashamed that I underestimated the American population in recent times. I expected them to sit back and watch themselves be led down the wrong path, too blissfully enraptured in the cult of personality surrounding Obama to notice that the same old tirade was going on as has been going on for decades now. But as more and more people are standing up and saying, “Hey! This is NOT what I voted for!”, I am proud that they are paying attention, but terrified that there is obviously not much that their attention to - and passion about - the issues is going to prevent. Apparently our system is no longer set up in such a way that dissent even by the majority is tolerated. George Bernard Shaw once claimed that democracy is a vehicle that ensures that a population is governed no better than it deserves. As timely and poignant as that statement was and is, unfortunately I believe that claim has been superseded by a new assertion: That regardless of the appearance of democracy, tyranny will always find its pretext.
8/08/2009
Say What?!?
I rarely get offended in response to a remark, especially one made by a politician – it really is just not worth the effort, most of the time. However, today I honestly find myself feeling more than a little insulted. And it is truly not an easy feat to make me feel insulted, especially when it comes to politics. I understand that there are at least two sides to every issue - usually far more than that – so any differing opinions usually land softly upon me, even when dealt harshly. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) really knocked me off my toes Thursday. According to Reid, protesting healthcare reform is a ploy to undermine the democratic process. He also claims that the protests are being stimulated by the GOP.
I will say that again. Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat, has decided that those who are concerned about the massive and arguably ill-conceived reform package, that is making the rounds through Congressional committees, and take their concerns to a public question-and-answer session are undermining the democratic process and must be agents of the GOP. Can there be a more contradictory statement?
The goings-on during Congress’ recent recess have been admittedly circus-like. Protests have reigned over most of the townhall-style meetings that Congressional members promised they would hold on the topic of healthcare. In response to the growing concern over the “healthcare reform” package, there have been dozens of these meetings, designed specifically (at least, according to the Dems) to address concerns over the package. Rumors about the repercussions of the legislation that have been running rampantly have spooked people (and rightly so – some of them are downright nasty) and now some people are scared, and going to these meetings for answers. Others are angry – they either believe the rumors or are using them as a soapbox to preach libertarianism, anti-socialism, or other such beliefs. Either way, these people have the right to be there. They have the right to ask questions, hold signs, yell if they feel like it. This right is written into our Constitution.
Senator Reid would like people to believe that those picketing the townhalls are against reform. Against change. Against Obama (gasp!). Not necessarily. Some have legitimate concerns that simply aren’t being addressed anywhere else, and when a legislator comes to answer questions and ignores them, things tend to get heated. As do responses to answers that don’t make sense. And these legislators are saying an awful lot that simply doesn’t make sense. Maybe because they are purposefully double-talking, maybe because they themselves really don’t know what the hell they are talking about, but who knows? Either way, those who exercise their right to protest may not necessarily be against the thing they are protesting. They may have concerns with just part of it (many folks are up in arms about the “right to end-of-life counseling” clause in the reform bill – a misguided concern, but legitimate), but otherwise support the idea of reform. These people with legitimate concerns are being accused of undermining democracy with their bothersome questions and emotions, something that apparently can’t be tolerated by Reid and Co.
Senator Reid would also like people to believe that there is an overwhelming majority of the population that supports every portion of this legislation. He claims that the few who don’t are obstructing the majority rule. Wrong again, Harry. In fact, since details of Obama’s healthcare reform started emerging in its many forms, Obama’s approval rating has been in a state of slow-play freefall. People in general do seem to like the idea of healthcare reform (hell, its what won Obama the election in the first place) but many seem as skeptical of Obama’s version of it as they would be of Hitler’s. There would be only one way to find out if the majority approved of this plan, and that would be to call a popular vote. But that is starkly out of the question, of course. So we are simply supposed to sit back and believe that these lawmakers are doing what is in our best interest and majority opinion, regardless of the fact that enough of us oppose it that all meetings about it are being invariably disrupted? Come on, Harry! The population may have bought into the “Change we can believe in” crap, but we are just a little smarter than that!
I don’t mean to sound as though I am supporting the Republicans on this issue, either. I identify with a Republican about as far as I identify with a mountain goat. But I do believe that Senator Reid’s assertion that the GOP is behind the protests is simply ludicrous and insulting. To make the claim that so many people must be in support of this legislation that the only way that protests would arise is if they were schemed up in some backroom deal with the Recreate 68 group or something is just unforgiveable, in my opinion. Reid and his DNP have gone too far this time. They are not the “knights in shining armor” they so obviously want to be. They are riding the coattails of a popular president and believe that now that they control the House, Senate, and White House, that magically makes them the most popular kids in school and no one would dare stand up to them. Well, sorry to disappoint you, Harry, but there are a lot of people still willing to stand up to you, and to Obama too.
I will say that again. Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat, has decided that those who are concerned about the massive and arguably ill-conceived reform package, that is making the rounds through Congressional committees, and take their concerns to a public question-and-answer session are undermining the democratic process and must be agents of the GOP. Can there be a more contradictory statement?
The goings-on during Congress’ recent recess have been admittedly circus-like. Protests have reigned over most of the townhall-style meetings that Congressional members promised they would hold on the topic of healthcare. In response to the growing concern over the “healthcare reform” package, there have been dozens of these meetings, designed specifically (at least, according to the Dems) to address concerns over the package. Rumors about the repercussions of the legislation that have been running rampantly have spooked people (and rightly so – some of them are downright nasty) and now some people are scared, and going to these meetings for answers. Others are angry – they either believe the rumors or are using them as a soapbox to preach libertarianism, anti-socialism, or other such beliefs. Either way, these people have the right to be there. They have the right to ask questions, hold signs, yell if they feel like it. This right is written into our Constitution.
Senator Reid would like people to believe that those picketing the townhalls are against reform. Against change. Against Obama (gasp!). Not necessarily. Some have legitimate concerns that simply aren’t being addressed anywhere else, and when a legislator comes to answer questions and ignores them, things tend to get heated. As do responses to answers that don’t make sense. And these legislators are saying an awful lot that simply doesn’t make sense. Maybe because they are purposefully double-talking, maybe because they themselves really don’t know what the hell they are talking about, but who knows? Either way, those who exercise their right to protest may not necessarily be against the thing they are protesting. They may have concerns with just part of it (many folks are up in arms about the “right to end-of-life counseling” clause in the reform bill – a misguided concern, but legitimate), but otherwise support the idea of reform. These people with legitimate concerns are being accused of undermining democracy with their bothersome questions and emotions, something that apparently can’t be tolerated by Reid and Co.
Senator Reid would also like people to believe that there is an overwhelming majority of the population that supports every portion of this legislation. He claims that the few who don’t are obstructing the majority rule. Wrong again, Harry. In fact, since details of Obama’s healthcare reform started emerging in its many forms, Obama’s approval rating has been in a state of slow-play freefall. People in general do seem to like the idea of healthcare reform (hell, its what won Obama the election in the first place) but many seem as skeptical of Obama’s version of it as they would be of Hitler’s. There would be only one way to find out if the majority approved of this plan, and that would be to call a popular vote. But that is starkly out of the question, of course. So we are simply supposed to sit back and believe that these lawmakers are doing what is in our best interest and majority opinion, regardless of the fact that enough of us oppose it that all meetings about it are being invariably disrupted? Come on, Harry! The population may have bought into the “Change we can believe in” crap, but we are just a little smarter than that!
I don’t mean to sound as though I am supporting the Republicans on this issue, either. I identify with a Republican about as far as I identify with a mountain goat. But I do believe that Senator Reid’s assertion that the GOP is behind the protests is simply ludicrous and insulting. To make the claim that so many people must be in support of this legislation that the only way that protests would arise is if they were schemed up in some backroom deal with the Recreate 68 group or something is just unforgiveable, in my opinion. Reid and his DNP have gone too far this time. They are not the “knights in shining armor” they so obviously want to be. They are riding the coattails of a popular president and believe that now that they control the House, Senate, and White House, that magically makes them the most popular kids in school and no one would dare stand up to them. Well, sorry to disappoint you, Harry, but there are a lot of people still willing to stand up to you, and to Obama too.
1/21/2009
Too Costly? Is that all?
Okay, to continue with the previous topic of the inauguration of President Barack Obama (since I didn't really get very far yesterday), I'd like to comment about a few things I noticed while listening to his address.
In my opinion, the reason we elected President Obama is because he is a fantastic orator. He is inspirational, enticing, electric, and verging on hypnotic in his speeches. He has the ability to command your attention, not simply ask for it. We saw this at its best during his speech yesterday. The words he spoke were not nearly so inspiring as the way he spoke them, and this is illustrated by the fact that he simply paraphrased the inauguration addresses of several former presidents, but with style. He touched on freedom, extremism, the fact that we "will not apologize for our way of life" here in America (he took this almost verbatum out of the Bush playbook) and many other usually cliche` subjects, however I am sure very few even noticed this as they were too blinded by his rhetorical prowess.
I don't mean to sound cynical, here. I honestly don't. I believe that Obama's ability to motivate a usually sluggish American people into feeling something about the political scene besides distrust or indifference is an astounding feat. He has managed to take several generations' worth of apathy compounded by anger and completely turned that on its head, with a few simple speeches. There are millions of people who two years ago couldn't care less what our domestic agenda consisted of, that now are so deeply emotionally-invested in Obama's presidency they actually cry as he speaks.
He is quite an orator.
But let's get serious for a moment. Yes, Obama is inspirational. Yes, he has "big plans" for Washington. Yes, he is closing Gitmo. But is he really going to come through on all his other promises, the ones he won the election toting? What about healthcare? Last week he said that a single-payer health insurance system, or even anything close to it, was not going to happen on his watch. But, wasn't that one of his biggest promises? Even if his ever-changing health plan didn't committ him to enact a single-payer insurer, isn't he responsible for the promise he made to ensure that ALL children under the age of 18 have insurance? If he isn't going to build some sort of single-payer program, how does he plan to keep that promise?
I wanted some answers to that question, so I investigated the sleek new White House website, found the area on healthcare, and hungrily delved into it, sure I would find the answer I was looking for. Well, I did.
This is what Obama's official agenda says on the topic of childrens' healthcare: NOTHING. It goes over the plan's specific requirements for businesses and insurance companies, but not one word about requiring health care for our kids. In fact, of the 2,300 + words in his speech yesterday, he devoted exactly six of those to the topic of healthcare, by saying that it was "too costly". I'm sorry, but, duh! Isn't that why you spent the better part of your campaign railing against the current system? Isn't that why you vowed to "change" that system? Isn't that why we elected you? You promised to ensure our children healthcare. Where has the buck stopped on that?
As disappointing as that little revelation was, I still hold onto the hope that President Obama will fulfill at least some of the many, many promises he made to us over the past two years. I hold onto the hope that his presidency will change our country for the better, because right now, stagnation is the worst possible thing we could endure.
More on this later, I promise...
In my opinion, the reason we elected President Obama is because he is a fantastic orator. He is inspirational, enticing, electric, and verging on hypnotic in his speeches. He has the ability to command your attention, not simply ask for it. We saw this at its best during his speech yesterday. The words he spoke were not nearly so inspiring as the way he spoke them, and this is illustrated by the fact that he simply paraphrased the inauguration addresses of several former presidents, but with style. He touched on freedom, extremism, the fact that we "will not apologize for our way of life" here in America (he took this almost verbatum out of the Bush playbook) and many other usually cliche` subjects, however I am sure very few even noticed this as they were too blinded by his rhetorical prowess.
I don't mean to sound cynical, here. I honestly don't. I believe that Obama's ability to motivate a usually sluggish American people into feeling something about the political scene besides distrust or indifference is an astounding feat. He has managed to take several generations' worth of apathy compounded by anger and completely turned that on its head, with a few simple speeches. There are millions of people who two years ago couldn't care less what our domestic agenda consisted of, that now are so deeply emotionally-invested in Obama's presidency they actually cry as he speaks.
He is quite an orator.
But let's get serious for a moment. Yes, Obama is inspirational. Yes, he has "big plans" for Washington. Yes, he is closing Gitmo. But is he really going to come through on all his other promises, the ones he won the election toting? What about healthcare? Last week he said that a single-payer health insurance system, or even anything close to it, was not going to happen on his watch. But, wasn't that one of his biggest promises? Even if his ever-changing health plan didn't committ him to enact a single-payer insurer, isn't he responsible for the promise he made to ensure that ALL children under the age of 18 have insurance? If he isn't going to build some sort of single-payer program, how does he plan to keep that promise?
I wanted some answers to that question, so I investigated the sleek new White House website, found the area on healthcare, and hungrily delved into it, sure I would find the answer I was looking for. Well, I did.
This is what Obama's official agenda says on the topic of childrens' healthcare: NOTHING. It goes over the plan's specific requirements for businesses and insurance companies, but not one word about requiring health care for our kids. In fact, of the 2,300 + words in his speech yesterday, he devoted exactly six of those to the topic of healthcare, by saying that it was "too costly". I'm sorry, but, duh! Isn't that why you spent the better part of your campaign railing against the current system? Isn't that why you vowed to "change" that system? Isn't that why we elected you? You promised to ensure our children healthcare. Where has the buck stopped on that?
As disappointing as that little revelation was, I still hold onto the hope that President Obama will fulfill at least some of the many, many promises he made to us over the past two years. I hold onto the hope that his presidency will change our country for the better, because right now, stagnation is the worst possible thing we could endure.
More on this later, I promise...
1/20/2009
Ambiguously Hopeful
I've decided that my first stop on this avenue of political analysis will be one of obvious importance - the inauguration of President Barack Obama. This being the historic day itself, I find this a fitting event to focus upon.
In order to begin my assessment of this historic moment, I must give you just a bit more background about myself. To start, I will explain why I did not vote for Barack Obama.
As I'm sure I just lost some of those readers who lean a little further to the left, I will attempt to regain some credibility by admitting that I did, initially, support President Obama in his campaign. I was proud the day he announced his candidacy, even a little hopeful (and for how cynical I can be, that was quite a feat). I honestly did not think he had a snowball's chance in summer of winning, but I was inspired - as many are - by his clarity, idealism, and determination. I looked on in wonder as he climbed higher and higher in the polls, still not fully believing in his chances of actually winning this thing. It was only until he won out over Hillary Clinton in the primaries that I even began to consider the possibility that we may someday be referring to Mr. Obama as President Obama.
Now, as I see this must be leading some to wonder why I did not vote in his favor, I will attempt to explain. To explain it in short, I am skeptical of globalization. I believe it to be a noble idea in theory, but in practice... I see too much corruption and competition in the world for it to be successful in the near future. I realize this alone does not do well to explain my lack of support of President Obama, so I will try to flesh my thoughts out a bit more.
The world is, of course, becoming more and more of a global community. I do not reject this. However, I believe that globalization is a natural process that we must ease ourselves into. To do otherwise would be to push ourselves beyond our capabilities, to ultimately negative ends. The current global leaders who push our countries towards deeper and more dependant integration, in my opinion, are de-stabilizing an already faltering global community. We must leave some room for lesser-developed countries to catch up technologically and culturally before we mandate global integration. To do anything but is to behave irresponsibly.
So, how does this reflect my decision not to vote for President Obama? It does because Obama is a card-carrying globalist, and his ability to lead the American people is intimidating. I fear that his beautiful rhetoric and powerful persona will allow his administration to carry us further into a globalistic relationship with the rest of the world, maybe more quickly than we, or the rest of the world, are ready for. This is not to say that President Obama won't have the best of intentions in his quest to globalize, I simply believe that we trust this man so much, we will follow him anywhere, even into a danger zone.
This is also not to say that I don't support many of President Obama's policies and goals. I do. I am anticipating some very needed and long-awaited changes from him, and I can only hope he follows through. My reservations over his globalistic tendancies do not trump my hope that he will fulfill his promises to their full extent. I truly and sincerely hope my fears are ill-concieved, yet I cannot simply forget them. To me, it is a choice between the present and the future, and as I have a son, I will always choose the future.
Only time will tell, of course, whether in four or eight years we will have a successfully globalized world or a globalized government teetering on the edge of failure - either will not surprise me. As President Obama put it so elegantly himself just today, "The question is not whether government is too big or too small. The question is whether it works." If he is capable of leading us into a successful, ethical, fair globalist government, then I will eat my words. I won't stand in the way of progress.
I cannot say where we will be eight years from now, as I'm sure nobody can. But I can say this; I hope the inspirational moment of today, that has breathed a sense of renew into the entire country, will persist through the next four years, and that neither he nor we forget what this day, this historic day, felt like. We broke down barriers today, barriers that some probably believed would always remain. We renewed our country's sense of self, our sense of purpose, and for that I do thank President Obama. I doubt anyone else could have stepped up to that plate.
In order to begin my assessment of this historic moment, I must give you just a bit more background about myself. To start, I will explain why I did not vote for Barack Obama.
As I'm sure I just lost some of those readers who lean a little further to the left, I will attempt to regain some credibility by admitting that I did, initially, support President Obama in his campaign. I was proud the day he announced his candidacy, even a little hopeful (and for how cynical I can be, that was quite a feat). I honestly did not think he had a snowball's chance in summer of winning, but I was inspired - as many are - by his clarity, idealism, and determination. I looked on in wonder as he climbed higher and higher in the polls, still not fully believing in his chances of actually winning this thing. It was only until he won out over Hillary Clinton in the primaries that I even began to consider the possibility that we may someday be referring to Mr. Obama as President Obama.
Now, as I see this must be leading some to wonder why I did not vote in his favor, I will attempt to explain. To explain it in short, I am skeptical of globalization. I believe it to be a noble idea in theory, but in practice... I see too much corruption and competition in the world for it to be successful in the near future. I realize this alone does not do well to explain my lack of support of President Obama, so I will try to flesh my thoughts out a bit more.
The world is, of course, becoming more and more of a global community. I do not reject this. However, I believe that globalization is a natural process that we must ease ourselves into. To do otherwise would be to push ourselves beyond our capabilities, to ultimately negative ends. The current global leaders who push our countries towards deeper and more dependant integration, in my opinion, are de-stabilizing an already faltering global community. We must leave some room for lesser-developed countries to catch up technologically and culturally before we mandate global integration. To do anything but is to behave irresponsibly.
So, how does this reflect my decision not to vote for President Obama? It does because Obama is a card-carrying globalist, and his ability to lead the American people is intimidating. I fear that his beautiful rhetoric and powerful persona will allow his administration to carry us further into a globalistic relationship with the rest of the world, maybe more quickly than we, or the rest of the world, are ready for. This is not to say that President Obama won't have the best of intentions in his quest to globalize, I simply believe that we trust this man so much, we will follow him anywhere, even into a danger zone.
This is also not to say that I don't support many of President Obama's policies and goals. I do. I am anticipating some very needed and long-awaited changes from him, and I can only hope he follows through. My reservations over his globalistic tendancies do not trump my hope that he will fulfill his promises to their full extent. I truly and sincerely hope my fears are ill-concieved, yet I cannot simply forget them. To me, it is a choice between the present and the future, and as I have a son, I will always choose the future.
Only time will tell, of course, whether in four or eight years we will have a successfully globalized world or a globalized government teetering on the edge of failure - either will not surprise me. As President Obama put it so elegantly himself just today, "The question is not whether government is too big or too small. The question is whether it works." If he is capable of leading us into a successful, ethical, fair globalist government, then I will eat my words. I won't stand in the way of progress.
I cannot say where we will be eight years from now, as I'm sure nobody can. But I can say this; I hope the inspirational moment of today, that has breathed a sense of renew into the entire country, will persist through the next four years, and that neither he nor we forget what this day, this historic day, felt like. We broke down barriers today, barriers that some probably believed would always remain. We renewed our country's sense of self, our sense of purpose, and for that I do thank President Obama. I doubt anyone else could have stepped up to that plate.
The long, winding road of politics
Since this is my first blog, I think I will start by introducing myself...
Hello. My name is Emily Lynn Haacke. I am a senior at the University of Montana, about to graduate with a B.A. in political science. I have a wonderful husband and a beautiful son, who are by far the most important aspects of my life. I am a born-and-bred Montana girl who loves her dog and her family, and I just adore politics, especially the kind that leaves people scratching their heads and wondering, "Wait, what just happened?", but we'll get to that in a minute. Other than those little tidbits, I am a self-proclaimed artist (when I have time to be), a lover of all things Shakespeare, and a bit of a philosophical junkie (Plato and Thomas Paine just melt me). I have little time for music, but the Stray Cats and Mr. Bungle always bring a smile to my face.
Now that you know a little bit about me, let's get down to business.
As I stated previously, I am a political science specialist. Politics is my lifeblood. I find all aspects of it intriguing and challenging, but my interest really lies within the areas of public participation, psychological motivation, and policy-making. I am in my element when discussing the "behind-the-scenes" aspects of politics, including - but not limited to - interest group, popular culture, and personal influences on policy formulation. I have other areas of interest, as well, but I am most passionate about these particular arenas.
I mentioned earlier that I am about to graduate with a political science degree. I hope to one day be on the ground-floor of policy-making, or possibly become a political analyst for a news outlet, but I have a long way to go before that dream comes into being, I'm sure. When I graduate this May, I will of course be lucky to get into any position that calls upon my political science experience. However, I will not be discouraged by this. I plan to work hard and focus my efforts on becoming a better judge of political discourse and participation, and hopefully one day my opportunity to make a difference will present itself.
This has all been a (brief) introduction to myself and my goals, as I am sure that as this publication progresses my particular viewpoints and areas of interest will become more apparent. It is my hope that as I progress as a political contributor, my knowledge and expertise will only grow broader and more concrete. This blog is one way I plan to achieve this goal - I plan to address many different aspects of political life, and I hope to provide thought-provoking analysis of current events and policies. I will dissect public and institutional agendas, investigate current policies, and question personal motivations in the effort to better understand the road I have chosen for myself - the long, winding road of politics.
Hello. My name is Emily Lynn Haacke. I am a senior at the University of Montana, about to graduate with a B.A. in political science. I have a wonderful husband and a beautiful son, who are by far the most important aspects of my life. I am a born-and-bred Montana girl who loves her dog and her family, and I just adore politics, especially the kind that leaves people scratching their heads and wondering, "Wait, what just happened?", but we'll get to that in a minute. Other than those little tidbits, I am a self-proclaimed artist (when I have time to be), a lover of all things Shakespeare, and a bit of a philosophical junkie (Plato and Thomas Paine just melt me). I have little time for music, but the Stray Cats and Mr. Bungle always bring a smile to my face.
Now that you know a little bit about me, let's get down to business.
As I stated previously, I am a political science specialist. Politics is my lifeblood. I find all aspects of it intriguing and challenging, but my interest really lies within the areas of public participation, psychological motivation, and policy-making. I am in my element when discussing the "behind-the-scenes" aspects of politics, including - but not limited to - interest group, popular culture, and personal influences on policy formulation. I have other areas of interest, as well, but I am most passionate about these particular arenas.
I mentioned earlier that I am about to graduate with a political science degree. I hope to one day be on the ground-floor of policy-making, or possibly become a political analyst for a news outlet, but I have a long way to go before that dream comes into being, I'm sure. When I graduate this May, I will of course be lucky to get into any position that calls upon my political science experience. However, I will not be discouraged by this. I plan to work hard and focus my efforts on becoming a better judge of political discourse and participation, and hopefully one day my opportunity to make a difference will present itself.
This has all been a (brief) introduction to myself and my goals, as I am sure that as this publication progresses my particular viewpoints and areas of interest will become more apparent. It is my hope that as I progress as a political contributor, my knowledge and expertise will only grow broader and more concrete. This blog is one way I plan to achieve this goal - I plan to address many different aspects of political life, and I hope to provide thought-provoking analysis of current events and policies. I will dissect public and institutional agendas, investigate current policies, and question personal motivations in the effort to better understand the road I have chosen for myself - the long, winding road of politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
