The reason why Obama is finding health reform such a struggle ”“ even though it was central to his election platform ”“ is not because an extreme wing of the Republican Party, mobilised by media shock-jocks, is foaming at the mouth, or because Republicans have more money than Democrats to buy lobbying and advertising power. Nor is it only because so many influential groups, from insurance companies through doctors, have lucrative interests to defend ”“ although this is a big part of it.
It is because very many Americans simply do not agree that it is a good idea. And they include not only mainstream Republicans, but Democrats, too. Indeed, Obama’s chief problem in seeking to extend health cover to most Americans is not Republican opposition: he thrashed John McCain to win his presidential mandate; he has majorities in both Houses of Congress. If Democrats were solidly behind reform, victory would already be his.
The unpalatable fact for Europeans who incline to think that Americans are just like us is that Democrats are not solidly behind Obama on this issue. Even many in the party’s mainstream must be wooed, cajoled and even ”“ yes ”“ frightened, if they are ever going to agree to change the status quo. Universal healthcare is an article of faith in the US only at what mainstream America would regard as the bleeding- heart liberal end of the spectrum.
What an arrogant and mean-spirited piece this is. Leftist solutions are compassionate, and rightist solutions are “mean.”
“he thrashed John McCain to win his presidential mandate;”
52% to 48% is a thrashing?
And wanting to leave something to our next generation (other than a pile of debt) is mean?
And how about this . . .
The American Medical Association is actually on board with the Dems version of health care reform . . .
Can’t blame organized medicine.
It is difficult to take the Limbaugh-istas and their allies seriously when they can’t offer any alternative to the present health-care system. As for the “town hall” discourses, they bear an eerie resemblance to gatherings in early 20th century Germany. But the opponents of even minimal health care reform have nothing to fear. They will get a health care plan that enhances the profits of every sector of the medical industry, and ensures that tens of millions of Americans will remain uninsured. Politicians will continue to be fed at the ample breasts of medical lobbyists. They’ve already been bought off, and need to continue feeding at the trough.
Sorry, but I find i
Sorry, but I find it hard to take a comment like #4 seriously. Numerous politicians and editorial writers have offered alternatives which would increase the numbers of insured at far less cost than the Democratic proposals. As to early twentieth century Germany, it was dominated by a socialist movement which resolved into a fascist regime in which the government controlled much of what private industry did, and so the resemblance is not to those who are protesting the ramming through of massive unpopular change but rather to those attempting the ramming.
Representatives who come to constituent meetings familiar with what is being proposed and willing to discuss it in detail are not having a hard time; it’s those who condescendingly tell people to trust them, and make impossible promises of “revenue neutral” bills who have difficulties.
I am a becoming a big fan of Katherine. That she would take time to respond to one of the silliest examples of Godwin’s law is to her credit.
As I said on another thread, wanting to leave something other than a pile of debt to our kids and grandkids is not “mean.”
BTW, Anglican Curmudgeon has a reference to a Debt clock which includes the mounting costs of the unfunded mandates. Something like $190,000 per person.
One of my congressperson offered an alternative and it’s on his website so it’s nonsense that no alterrnatives have been offered. He also had a meeting by phone to answer questions and allow for comments. Also, as Kathereine pointed out other folks have offered alternatives. The MSNBC doesn’t want people to know that. They just want to offer the Obama screed that stopping Obama’s plan is a right wing conspiracy.
[blockquote]And how about this . . .
The American Medical Association is actually on board with the Dems version of health care reform . . . [/blockquote]
Not to mention Obama and his gang have arm-twisted the pharmaceutical industry into running $150 million of ads – more than the McCain campaign’s entire TV budget in 2008 – in support of health care collectivization. Tell me again who are the rich fatcats again?
The theory is that Obama got them (Big Pharma) to support his health care plan by saying bringing down of prescriptions costs would be off the table. Funny that. :^(
Oh my.
RE: “It is difficult to take the Limbaugh-istas and their allies [sic — Dan means political conservatives who don’t want a further expanded State] seriously when they can’t offer any alternative to the present health-care system.”
One can certainly tell who Dan hangs out with, by the fact that he’s missed the various plans from the conservative side for the reform of the health care system.
Just to name one such plan — of many:
http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=SponsoredBills.HealthCareFreedomAct
RE: “As for the “town hall†discourses, they bear an eerie resemblance to gatherings in early 20th century Germany.”
lol. Yeh yeh . . . that’s it. But . . . maybe Dan meant the *leaders* of the gatherings in early 20th century Germany — I’ll buy that!
RE: “But the opponents of even minimal health care reform have nothing to fear.”
But who would those opponents be? Not the conservatives. We’re all for *radical* health care reform — radically eliminating the State from as much of the health care system as is possible and finally finally letting the market do what it does.
No, all Dan’s rant is about is merely pointing out the differences between those who desire an expanded State and those who desire a greatly diminished State. No amount of tossing “plans” back and forth is going to eliminate the fundamental and foundational and mutually opposing differences between those worldviews.
Hence the inability to actually “discuss” health care system reform between the proponents of the two competing proposals.
[i] Off topic comment deleted. [/i]
This article has to many factual errors to be taken seriously. The richest nation on earth should read the greatest debtor nation an earth and getting worst every day.. that is just a start. The Republicans are not wealthier than the Democrats Warren Buffet, George Soros to start the list.. it goes on but why bother!
There is a mean streak in the US, and it has a lot to do with the history of white supremacy. Race populism was used to undermine unions, a national health care system by using the code “anti-communism.” Civil rights leaders were considered agents of the Soviets. FDR was considered to be betraying American principles as well.
Flogging that dead horse again, JW?
Call me a right-wing madman, but I’m of the view that pointing a gun at someone and demanding he pay for my Lipitor strikes me as a trifle “mean,” no matter how many layers of hypocritical port-side slime one slathers it in.
[blockquote]There is a mean streak in the US, and it has a lot to do with the history of white supremacy. Race populism was used to undermine unions, a national health care system by using the code “anti-communism.†Civil rights leaders were considered agents of the Soviets. FDR was considered to be betraying American principles as well.[/blockquote]
[giggle]
And not only did FDR engage in grotesque violations of the Constitution — thus certainly making many of his actions anti-American — but we conservatives kick little dogs too. ; > )
Nice to be complimented by Wilkins.
RE: ” . . . no matter how many layers of hypocritical port-side slime one slathers it in.”
Word, Jeffersonian.
Thank you. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go step on some baby chicks and put a couple of puppies into blenders.
Jefferson, if you had just asked me nicely, I would have given the money to you. When you get sick I’ll help you, and when I get sick you’ll help me. Especially because my Health Savings Account completely tanked in the market.
The insurance company already holds a gun to my head. If I didn’t have insurance, someone else will be forced to pay the hospital. It might be you, because you have insurance. Hospitals will shift the costs of serving the uninsured by charging insurance companies more.
The history isn’t hard to find. Several historians (say, Rhys Isaac, if I recall), have discussed how violence was a part of American culture, and how that was manifested in later times (say, lynchings). I’m not surprised you would paper over that history, or insinuate that it’s meaningless.
FDR and Truman’s attempts for a social insurance were objected to by Southern Democrats, on the basis of race. Instead, there was federal funding to poorer states for the purpose of constructing hospitals, which had more southern support – another example of Keynesian economic policies.
Although I’m sure racial discrimination is non-existent in your neck of the woods, its history, I submit, has a longer shadow than you are willing to see.
JW, you and many other people misunderstand. Someone else is paying the hospital. Insurance is shared risk. Most of us pay more than our health care is worth in most years in order that those of us unlucky enough to need the hospital don’t have to pay for it all. If your insurance is through an employer, your employer is also paying. It isn’t free.
I assume you’re joking about having your Health Savings Account in the market.
This line about opposition to ObamaCare being racist is current among some liberal pundits and politicians. It’s nonsense, and it’s offensive.
[blockquote]Jefferson, if you had just asked me nicely, I would have given the money to you. When you get sick I’ll help you, and when I get sick you’ll help me. Especially because my Health Savings Account completely tanked in the market.[/blockquote]
That’s very sweet of you (BTW, I don’t take Lipitor or anything else, so rest easy), but do I get to agree to this arrangement or am I going to be compelled to enter into it?
[blockquote]The insurance company already holds a gun to my head. If I didn’t have insurance, someone else will be forced to pay the hospital. It might be you, because you have insurance. Hospitals will shift the costs of serving the uninsured by charging insurance companies more. [/blockquote]
This doesn’t even begin to make sense. Would you care to revise?
RE: ” I’m not surprised you would paper over that history, or insinuate that it’s meaningless.”
Of course, Jeffersonian didn’t attempt to “paper over” any facts. But yes, it’s meaningless — actually humorous — when John Wilkins tries to pretend as if those who oppose further State involvement in healthcare are white supremacists.
Thank God that from the likes of John Wilkins, any attempted insult is a compliment.
I kinda thought that’s where he was headed, and decided it was too ludicrous to be true. Maybe he’s serious about it, in which case I just have to laugh…the best comedy is done with an absolutely straight face.
Sarah1, I thought the fair reading of JW’s comments (18 and to some extent 14) was that the New Deal era social programs (I inferred Social Security, he may have meant it to be broader) were opposed by southern white supremacists. I didn’t read him to say that the opposition to increased federal involvement in health care that is part of the current debate is driven by white supremacists. Nor did I sense that he was attempting to insult you or Jeffersonian. Reading more closely and carefully would save you some time and aggravation, I suspect.
Oh, so it was an inpromptu history lesson, something plucked from the ether to enlighten the rabble. Well I feel much better now.
Oh, but wait…JW’s had at least one other post deleted because he made that exact accusation you say he didn’t make here. Maybe we can all avoid misunderstandings if we’re all good [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson#Racism]progressives[/url].
Hi Nova Scout –
I appreciate your charity. You interpreted correctly. I don’t think race drives the issue as much as a general fear about big government (although I do think undocumented workers continue to be useful scapegoats), but I do think race has always been a part of our meanness to each other, as Americans. It is well documented.
I do think Jefferson and I have baited each other a few times. I accept my sin in that arrangement. I might not always be clear about these things, but its blogging.
Jefferson – well, I’m fully aware of the link between race and economic populism. You might as well bring up Tom Watson if you want another example. Maybe a better example of a progressive would have been [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._La_Follette,_Sr.]a Republican[/url]. But I don’t see you prove me wrong. Of course, if you can find me a party that believed in race equality at that time (say, the 1920’s), that you would have supported, I’m all ears. It would be nice if history was neat.
Perhaps a more recent, less volatile, articulation of how policy is affected by race would include a discussion of Lee Atwater’s [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Strategy]Southern Strategy.[/url]