Tag: health reform

  • I CAN HAZ PUBLIC OPTION?

    22 October 2009

    Okay, I confess, I’m not so fond of all those LOL cat sites, but the lingo sticks, ya know?  … for sheer relief, I must post my latest goofy mantra.  It really does run around my head, repeatedly, annoyingly, persistently and yet heart-felt-edly (??), and it has ever since Jason Linkins introduced me to the plea in his Sunday Talking Heads Roundup back on September 13th.  With help from my kitty Sophie, we proudly echo the appeal:

    I CAN HAZ PUBLIC OPTION PLZ?

    Sophie wants the public option because she has constantly goopy eyes and is living with kitty dwarfism.  She hopes that by the time she develops the heart and spine issues related to kitty dwarfism, maybe the public option will extend to pets.  I want the public option because I believe it’s the only way I will ever have a chance at affording health insurance,. and because I believe it has the best chance of breaking the profit-motivated stranglehold on health care in our country.  Plz, o buddeez n Congress, make this happen!

    By the way, if you are (1) curious about the Sunday political talk shows, but (2) can’t wake up that early due to work schedule, or (3) can’t drag yourself through the weird pontificating they promote, or (4) know that you will throw a brick strait through your TV if you are subjected to the voices of John McCain, Liz Cheney or David Brooks for long stretches of time, you can rely on Mr. Linkins for a weekly roundup of at least two or three of the shows.  A bit snarky, naturally, given that it’s Jason Linkins, but wonderfully summarized none-the-less.  Advised reading for all who tear their hair out when trying to wade through the oddity that IS the array of Sunday morning political talk shows.

  • Joe Wilson steps over the line

    16 September 2009

    Representative Joe Wilson (SC) is quite the household word this week, at least in political households.  His cry of “You Lie!” during Obama’s health care speech to a joint Congressional audience has sparked furor on both sides, as well as what is, these days, a sizeable middle:  He’s Out of Line! vs. He’s a Hero! vs. He’s kind of a schmuck, but whatever, can we turn the page now?

    As I see it, the facts of the situation lay out like this:  Obama made what I interpret as an accurate depiction of the health bill not paying for services for illegal immigrants, Wilson yelled “You Lie!” amid a rather noisy group of grumbling Republicans, imageNancy Pelosi delivered a most excellent death stare,  the bulk of our Senators and Representatives vented their displeasure via more loud grumbling, Wilson started doing HealthReformSpeech-9Sep2009-Obama,Pelosi,Biden-YouLieMoment-800x537something with his Blackberry (or whatever), and the speech moved on.  Later, Obama accepted an apology from Wilson, Pelosi agreed that this was sufficient, other members of Congress pressured Wilson to apologize to Congress, the Republicans rose to Wilson’s defense (both of his point of view, and of his right to vent his spleen during a speech by his President), and then the House of Representatives voted 240 to 179 to formally reprimand Mr. Wilson, in the following form (this is from Thomas, Library of Congress):

     

    H. Res. 744

    In the House of Representatives, U. S.,
    September 15, 2009.

     

    Whereas on September 9, 2009, during the joint session of Congress convened pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 179, the President of the United States, speaking at the invitation of the House and Senate, had his remarks interrupted by the Representative from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson; and

    Whereas the conduct of the Representative from South Carolina was a breach of decorum and degraded the proceedings of the joint session, to the discredit of the House: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the House of Representatives disapproves of the behavior of the Representative from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson, during the joint session of Congress held on September 9, 2009.

    Now, there is a flurry of upset on the right wing, protesting that Mr. Wilson was just speaking the truth, that after all, he was just calling a spade a spade, as my dad used to say.  Except for the FACT that Wilson is calling a heart a spade… but I digress.  The flurry is all about how the supposed rightness of Wilson’s accusation excuses his lousy behavior.  Or that he was criticized by members of congress and the press because they don’t like what he said.

    Myself, I don’t like how he said it.  I think Wilson is wrong – the bill does prohibit funding health care for illegal aliens – but I defend his right to spout whatever nonsense he likes.  He has to put up with the likes of journalists telling him he has the facts wrong, but he has every right to say what he thinks.

    But I don’t support his right to spout nonsense just anywhere.  For instance, during a gathering of both houses of Congress, in attendance at a formal presentation by the President of the United States.  I’m all for dissent, and free speech, and voicing one’s mind, but honestly, there are some situations in which it’s just bad form.

    I don’t support, for instance, loud noisy protests about gay marriage or abortion in or around anti-gay or anti-abortion churches.  I don’t think screaming at minimum-wage employees is a valid way to attack corporate greed.  I don’t support the wisdom, however it may fall under free speech rules, of the Westboro Baptists who protest at funerals of fallen soldiers because they think God is angry at the US for being so warm and fuzzy toward gay people.

    All of these kinds of protests may or may not be legal, but they are certainly rude and inappropriate.   And so I support the House in their on-record displeasure with Representative Wilson’s out-of-line behavior, because the House has every right to maintain somewhat harmonious debates within its walls.

    After all, with all of the brouhaha this past summer during the Town Hall health care meetings, often rising to minor physical violence and some extreme verbal sparring, it’s no wonder the House wants to set the boundary:  that went too far, back it off, settle down, and start behaving like grownups instead of school yard bullies.

    Mr. Wilson should be ashamed, not of his point of view, but his incredibly rude display of it.  I suspect his self-righteousness will prevent him from ever truly understanding what he did wrong.

  • Healthcare Costs: Appealing to the fiscally concerned

    1 September 2009

    Related to the effects of rationing are the effects of high-cost medical care. After discussing the impact on family finances and stability when a member becomes severely ill, Steve Benen notes:

    No other industrialized democracy on earth allows its citizens to endure such nightmares. […] an American Journal of Medicine study that found 62% of all American bankruptcies are linked to medical bills — and more than three out of four of those bankruptcies occurred among those with insurance. Again, every citizen of every other industrialized democracy on the planet need not worry about such a scenario. [emphasis mine]

    He offers this as a suggested appeal to the Republican sense of cost consciousness.  You’d think this would work.  It probably won’t.

  • Rationing

    30 August 2009

    Steve Benen, at the Washington Monthly blog, once again tipped me and other readers off to a couple of good articles by Ezra Klein and David Leonhardt, concerning health care reform and the issue of rationing.  Leonhardt sums it up:

    The choice isn’t between rationing and not rationing. It’s between rationing well and rationing badly.

    One of the more clear discords between What Is and What Is Imagined in the health care debates seems to be rationing. Some seem to fear that the Government will institute rationing of health care.  But it seems clear to me that we’ve had rationing since health insurance was invented. Choices are made to restrict or deny care by people above our nurses and doctors, folks who routinely limit care from their desks at insurance companies.  Unlike most of the health reform issue (elsewhere, I described the confusion of issues as spaghetti), the issue of rationing seems very obvious to me. 

    Leonhardt is right.  It’s not a question of whether we get rationing or not.  We currently have it.  It’s done by folks we have absolutely no control over – we are customers (or not) of private companies, not shareholders.  If we had government involvement, we’d be like shareholders, with some right to have a say over what goes on.  We can elect leaders who are able to shape the system.  There’s a significant chance that what rationing must inevitably occur in any system will at least be meted out fairly, and not because of profit incentive.  And we, as citizens have standing to complain if things go badly.

    As Leonhardt says, the choice is between good and bad rationing. We can’t be perfect, all things to all health consumers.  But certainly we can do better than what is happening right now.

  • Ted Kennedy

    26 August 2009

    Ted Kennedy has passed, after a long fight with cancer, and an even longer fight for progressive change in American society. 

    I learned of his death late last night (well, early this morning) as even ESPN broadcast the news in the sports bar where I was eating dinner a little after midnight.  As often happens when someone who is both elderly (77 years in this case) and very ill (cancer of the brain) dies after a long struggle, I experienced a mix of sadness at the passing of our Senate Lion, and relief for him, as he is released from fighting disease.  And as also often happens for me when someone influential in national politics passes, I fear for the fate of the causes so dear to his heart.

    This morning, just like almost all mornings, I woke up, answered a robo-call on health care ($99 for your whole family! Act now! Press 1 now to hear this important information!), fetched my morning java, and sat down to scan the headlines on Huffington Post’s website.  imageTed Kennedy’s name graced nearly every headline on the page, and I instantly teared up.  Why?  Certainly there is some sadness at anyone’s passing, and certainly there is a somber aspect to the loss of the last “Kennedy boy.”  I always feel for the many folks unknown to me who actually knew Kennedy and mourn the very personal loss in their own lives.  But in the mix was a great fear that the cause of his life, health care, has lost its most staunch warrior.  The loss of Kennedy, who already was only minimally able to participate in the health reform debates, means my world, our world, has become a little shakier, and my tears were at least a little driven by fear.

    I mentioned the HuffPo headlines.  I really couldn’t face reading the many opinion pieces written about the life and the loss of this great Senator.  Later, when I’m more awake, but not first off.  I jaunted over to my other morning web-haunts, Steve Benen’s “Political Animal” blog at the Washington Monthly (where Kennedy’s passing was addressed in a more practical manner related to the political impact, than the memorials at HuffPo), and with much trepidation, decided to visit the snarky but delightful Wonkette.  Would that blog display its usual irreverence and trashiness?  Surprisingly, no.  Their subdued and short post, saying simply “So long, old fella,” brought on the tears for real.  When even that trashy blog holds its usually sharp tongue, I know an era has ended.

    So long, old fella.  I will miss you, and we will all feel the loss of your forceful personality, and your immense efforts on behalf of us all.

  • Dear Barney Frank

    22 August 2009

    Dear Barney Frank,

    God love ya!  Days later, I’m still chuckling over your sharp and sweet retort to the Obama/Hitler flyer bearing woman at your Town Hall Meeting.  I confess, like a lot of people, I thought you were kind of rude to the poor ignorant citizen, but I just can’t be mad at you.  She was so much ruder, after all, as have been so many of her fellow protesters, to suggest some bizarre connection between Hitler and Obama’s health reform.  Some things are just beyond the pale, you know, and deserve to be called out.  Finally, some one did, and hopefully it will spill over to a lot of people holding those smear-wielding wing nuts accountable for what they are saying.  One blogger already has, articulating his objection both personally and a politically.

    So anyway, Mr. Frank, thanks for speaking out, for cutting that blithering idiot off before she could get started, for naming her ridiculous question for what it was: vile contemptible speech.  Thanks for equating trying to hold reasonable discussion with someone who asks their questions from such a bizarre world view as no more worthy than discussing something with a dining room table.  And actually, the table might provide better company.


    Addendum: My favorite editorial cartoon, and the video of the interaction