The Right To Health Care

September 6, 2009 in Health Care Crisis, Politics

Those of you following the “debate” about health care reform in the U.S. know that this coming week will be determinative. Obama is addressing a joint session of Congress on Wednesday.

In advance of the president’s speech, I thought it would be informative for you Wordsmokers out there who care about this issue to read the following.

Yes, this is a repost–and I know it is long, but just fucking read it–from the amazing progressive blogger Digby:

Wolcott makes an important point about the “health care debate” (and quotes tristero!):

Just take the phrase itself, “health care reform,” or, in its usual journalistic shorthand, “health reform.”

Are you telling me that with all the money pumped into consultants and pollsters, in a country whose media culture is built on advertising and catchphrases, that with all of ambitious little beavering minds who have studied the art and science of persuasion (and know Lakoff “framing” backwards and forwards, chapter and verse), that with all of that the architects and backers couldn’t come up with something more inspiring and memorable than “health care reform”? Where’s the creativity, the missionary zeal, the visionary spark? First of all, “reform” is one of the most boring fucking well-meaning meaningless words in the language. It’s a word that carries no juice, no buzz, no friction, no color, no nothing.

Why is it that Republican consultants can coin something as cunningly diabolical as “death tax” (as a substitute for inheritance taxes) and sell the hell out of it, or contrive the “Contract with America,” yet health reform is packaged in a plain brown wrapper with all the pizazz of a corporate restructuring plan. It should have been called something upbeat and flagwavey like “The American Health Freedom Act,” guaranteeing health coverage and available, affordable insurance for all.

Same deal with the “public option.” What kind of dead-dick policy term is that? “Option” is another term of pure anesthesia. Yes, Sarah Palin was fear-mongering with “death panels,” but that was a phrase that hit a nerve chord, as it was intended to. Faced with such poison spitballing, you’ve either got to up your deflection skills or find your own power chords.

read on ..

I could not agree more. The Democratic rhetoric on this has been about as lame as I’ve ever seen and that’s saying something. And it’s not just the buzzwords, it’s the slogans (or lack of them.) Why aren’t we hearing this kind of thing over and over again?

“Health Care is a right not a privilege.”

“Universal Health Care is pro-life”

“Nobody in America should have to go bankrupt because they get sick.”* (© Rick Perlstein)

“If you think it can’t happen to you, think again.”

“We already ration medicine in this country, we just do it by ability to pay. And once you get sick and can’t work, you can’t pay.”

Those are just a handful, some good some not. But let’s just say it would have been fairly easy to come up with some meaningful, pithy rhetoric to convey what the liberal position on health care is really all about.

Why are we fighting for a public option? Well, for me, it’s mainly because I resent the hell out of being forced to give money to a bunch of greedy private interests who game the system for their own enrichment on the backs of sick people. But that’s just me. I would guess that there are other people who care about saving costs and competition and the other wonky concerns.

But whatever the reasons, it’s clear that despite my earlier optimism about the reemergence of the word “public,” the term “public option” clearly was far too obscure and therefore easily demagogued. “Guaranteed Health Security Plan” or something like that would have been better. Or do what the Republicans do and cop the other side’s rhetoric for your own gain and call it “Individual Choice.”

Obviously, it’s easier to criticize than it is to come up with good alternatives. But Wolcott is right, nonetheless. You can’t beat “death panels” with “public option.” They aren’t even in the same rhetorical realm.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/baroness/ Baroness

    Wolcott’s quite right. Digby too. And the utterly predictable onslaught, the utter seizing of the debate by the corporatist right wing could have been seen coming a mile away.

    Here’s where Obama’s dispassion and Spock-like coolness becomes a fateful liability for millions. Unless he has something truly clever up his sleeve- like letting the idiots exhaust themselves all summer and run out of gas- I must say I’m disappointed that such a crucial reform is held hostage to insurance companies and irrational lunatics who take Glenn Beck seriously.

    We’ll see. Health care and it’s spiralling costs is squeezing the life out of the American middle class, who are actually beset on multiple fronts by corporate interests. Housing, jobs, health, education- it is a massive and sustained assault by corporations on every aspect of American’s lives, the logical outcome of massive deregulation, Reaganism brought to it’s logical conclusion. A middle and working class on its’ knees, crippled and squeezed dry by corporate interests in every aspect of their lives.

    Their houses, their jobs, their health, their kids’ affording college- every aspect of what was the American Dream seems now like an impossible luxury except for the very wealthiest. It’s a crippling drain on the American economy, too. Until very recently, consumer spending was 2/3rds of the American economy. People in fear, who’ve lost their jobs, who are so uncertain about their futures, are unlikely to go back to that.

    I’m not confident lately- Obama’s seeming capitulations, early and often, to the very villains who are exploiting the situation, is not encouraging. His willingness to cave at the first whiff of opposition does not bode well. Because for the people intent on destroying him, it will never be enough. It’s blood in the water to them.

    He’s bearing a heavy mantle- for the first time I’m wondering where his race might actually be a liability- because he will not ever do anything bold or daring. He is going to be careful to a fault. When we could really use some bold and daring from a Democratic president. He is no doubt painfully aware of the subtext of the very many attacks on him. And I wonder if that’s constraining him. I’m afraid we’re getting the moderate “centrist” we voted for, the guy always “reaching across the aisle” to the very people who can barely conceal their hatred for him.

    Which does jack shit for the people of the US who need some balls and brass on their side. Enjoy the Jesus trip, Obama, if you can’t do what you were elected to do, and give ordinary people some relief from relentless corporate assault on their lives, you will certainly be a one-term President. Because business is not as usual for Americans right now, they are suffering, they are at wits’ end. If you cannot remedy that, if you don’t even want to try, then you’ve really lost your chance at historic greatness, lost the chance to make some difference. Keep kowtowing to right-wing fucks, lose the respect of absolutely everyone, and get nothing done.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/seadebris/ seadebris

    Keep banging away at this LAWYERGAY!

    As always, Baroness, you have a excellent on-point post, so I will look like a blithering idiot next to your post, but what the hell, here goes…

    I was an HR manager for a US-based start-up company. All the employees were from France. I had the mind-numbing task of explaining our health care system and private insurance system to them.

    Their comments ranged from ,You have to be fucking kidding me? to You have to be fucking kidding me!

    Recently, I had the divine pleasure of working for the French office for three years. I had full medical, dental and vision care.

    I saw my doctor as needed. He made house calls from 8am to 12 noon; only to those patients that were too damn sick to get into the office. One day, that patient was me.
    Yup, he came to my apartment, checked me out and treated me for severe dehydration due to food poisoning.

    I also had all of the preventative medical tests and procedures offered to me at appropriate times as part of my health care program.

    Is their system perfect? No. Is any? No, but christ-on-a-cracker, that is so far from the fucking point I could scream bloody murder.

    In conclusion, FUCK!

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/chillbearlatrigue/ Chillbear Latrigue

    @Ness: If I were to read your writing in isolation, I would be lead to believe that there is workable plan sitting on the sidelines that can’t be implemented because the champion that the people have selected is afraid of the backlash of a tiny minority of the electorate.

    Only there isn’t a workable plan. It’s a hodgepodge of ideas pasted together with deficit spending.

    … and Obama is the right guy for this type of thing, but what he wants is counter to what the majority is seeking. 80% of the population is happy enough with their healthcare that they aren’t all that keen on rolling the dice with a plan that has never been explained to them, let alone tested.

    You act as though the only people against this bill are “right-wing fucks,” but former supporters of the bill are defecting in droves. It’s not that we are against Universal Healthcare. We just don’t believe that Congress and the President have a viable solution on paper.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/chillbearlatrigue/ Chillbear Latrigue

    @SD: Sorry, I missed your original post when I typed mine. You may or may not be able to answer this. I saw the house call thing in Sicko. It seems like a tremendously inefficient way to stretch man-hours out of doctors. I’m guessing that a doctor can see three patients an hour in an office because the patients are already there. If he works seven hours so that he can break for lunch, that’s 21 patients a day. I’ll round down to 20 for breaks.

    I would imagine a doctor driving around making house calls could complete a person about every 40 minutes. I’m guessing this because that’s what a normal call for service takes me if I have to write a report with travel time. A doctor must take at least as much time as I do considering drive time, diagnosis, prescription, etc. That would be 10-11 patients a day. I’ll round to ten to make the math easy. That’s 1/2 the output of the American system per doctor.

    This isn’t saying that we have better healthcare in the U.S. I’m just trying to figure out from where the cash for this obvious luxury comes.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/wrapitup/ Wrapitup

    I think Obama has done in 7 months what George W Bush could not do in 8 years: rile up the liberal and progressive class beyond passive depression into great fury. When Obama was campaigning last year, his army of 13 million volunteers got a taste of what action, tactics and strategy felt like and how satisfying it was to get out into the battlefield and fight. This was the first time after the civil rights era in the sixties when liberals felt energized enough to do battle. For far too long, the old hippie spirit of passively taking crap without considering retaliation permeated liberal culture. For the first time in decades, liberals tasted victory. And they learned that aggression, anger and fighting weren’t bad things. They also learned that with the right strategy and the right tactics, they could win and they could defeat conservatives.

    Conservatives have now finally gone too far. There is a limit to which you can keep falsely accusing anyone, even liberals. Ironically it was Obama who showed liberals how to be aggressive, how to fight, and how to win. But there were glimpses of his future strategic failures even a year ago. While Obama wooed Hollywood, he consistently neglected the Netroots and failed to harness their marketing power until last August. While he proclaimed his gay-friendly credentials, he invited an ex-gay singer, Donnie McClurkin to participate in one of his rallies. This was an early indication of how far he was willing to compromise his personal morals to come off as bipartisan.

    Now Obama is facing twin fallouts: disappointment from liberals that he has strayed too far from the agenda that he was elected to fulfil. But more importantly, liberals are finally fed up with being derided, mocked, falsely accused and verbally abused. Liberals are tired of putting up with repeated false accusations of being un-American, communist, socialist, Nazi-like and fascist. Liberal women are tired of being laughed at as ugly shrieking harridans. Liberal men are tired of being mocked as effeminate panty-waists. At a time when liberals most want a champion who will give voice to their anger and won’t take shit, Obama is doing exactly the opposite.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/baroness/ Baroness

    OH, I surely knew I would be hearing from you , dear ChillBear. Who is this “we” you are speaking of?

    Can you honestly tell me that this alleged 80% isn’t affected at all by the relentless scare tactics of FOX news all summer? I actually don’t know where you pulled that number from- 80% of insured people are oh so happy? That rather broadly misses the entire point.

    Former supporters of WHAT bill are ‘defecting in droves’? See, this is what’s a problem- polls mash together people who hate Obama along with people like myself who think the options on the table don’t go far enough. Yes, I disapprove if the public option is eliminated. So this is mashed together with the people who hate the idea of health care reform, and the natterers on television have something to talk about.

    I agree: we don’t know what the bill will be. But it’s not like any of us knew what was in the Patriot Act either. Let’s not play fucking dumb here. Making heath care affordable and accessible is the goal. You seem to have a problem with that, despite what you say. It’s a very selective sort of concern, and I wonder where that comes from. We spend trillions on “defense” and wars, but suddenly you’re all concerned about costs.

    Whatever , Chill. If you think our current system is sustainable, if you think there isn’t a very real cost we pay every day even without reform, so be it. I find it hard to believe that a policeman would be so hostile to the idea that the working guy gets a damned break, some security for his family. Because that social system that actually made America great has been shattered. You have yours, fine. Millions more go without, or are at the mercy of corporations. There was once some security in honorable, noble jobs like yours. Those benefits have been eroded to dust as corporations have seized benefits and pension plans.
    Hope for your sake they are actually there when you need them.

    Oh, but you’re from that fucking retarded Florida, aren’t you? Yeah, we can josh about that for days, you can be self-deprecating, lol, but frankly I’m done and over with rednecks who watch FOX dominating the debate. Sorry if that stings, I like you immensely, i’m just sick of this sort of stingy, hostile, white Southerner attitude being presented as mainstream. It’s not.
    Tell those loudmouth right-wing bitches down there to shut up and secede already. Good riddance. They’d be Somalia within 2 years.

    Some system of public health would do a great deal to alleviate the real suffering going on in the nation, as we speak. You can close your eyes, some of us can’t. You’ve got yours, for now. Selfishness is no excuse for closing your eyes to injustice, exploitation, and lives wasted for lack of basic medical care. And that is that.

    You can keep your medical plan under any reform. WHY this simple fact isn’t being yelled from the rooftops by Obama’s team at this point is a disastrous failure already. I suspect it’s not important, and this whole exercise is cosmetic. Disheartening. The US really is a great nation, but not if it descends into some barbaric hell of haves and have-nots set against each other for corporate profit. It’s an appalling idea for a great society- but that’s exactly where things are headed at this point.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/misterhippity/ MisterHippity

    You all want Obama to be a liberal, but he was never a liberal. He ran as a moderate, and he’s been a moderate ever since he was elected (exactly has advertised).

    He cannot pass the “public option” version of the healthcare plan you all want (and I want, for that matter) because he can’t get all the votes he needs in congress to support it (not just from Republicans, but also from moderate democrats). That’s just a fact. Be angry about that all you want, but don’t blame Obama.

    And, I know it upsets very liberal folks, but the moderates are the ones who got him elected when they swung his way away from the republicans, and the moderates are also the ones whose political beliefs are closest to the majority of mainstream Americans right now. And the health plan we’ll get, if we can get it passed at all, will be (and really probably should be) a moderate one.

    I’m sorry you didn’t get Dennis Kucinich for president, but there’s really no point in being furious with Obama for not being Kucinich. He was never Kucinich in the first place.

    I think he’s done a very admirable job so far, in a virtually hopeless situation he’s been handed since he got elected (shitty economy + pile of shit situation handed him by past president). But he will also probably go down in as probably the most underappreciated president in history because he is not only attacked from the right (as expected), but also torn to shreds with almost equal viciousness by those on the left who should be supporting him (even if they have qualms about some of his centrist positions).

    I am a democrat who is sickened by my own party’s sick tendency to gleefully destroy and feast on its own.

    And Baroness, I really like you, so don’t get me wrong, but this really upset me:

    “I’m wondering where his race might actually be a liability- because he will not ever do anything bold or daring.”

    Are you really suggesting that, because his policy decisions have not hewn 100% to your own beliefs, this must mean that he is “a cowardly black man.” I really hope not, but I just don’t know how else to interpret what you wrote.

    That’s almost worse than the kind of racism that comes from the right.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/chillbearlatrigue/ Chillbear Latrigue

    @Ness: Don’t worry, I never get upset when we argue, even when you attack my beloved Florida. However, as you can see from the hour of this post, it is early and I will have to respond at length later. However, since I don’t want to leave you with nothing,

    “You can keep your medical plan under any reform.” The issue is that private companies have to compete with a public option. How can any company pit itself against a competitor that can print its own money that is not subjected to the same rules? I have more on your post, but we’ll call this the salad course of the argument.

    Also, I like you too, Ness. I would trade a hundred of my best conservatives to have you on my side. Consider this trade wisely, Liberals, I will only offer it once.

    @Hip: I agree with almost everything that you said in your post. I admire Obama in a lot of ways. In fact, I would totally want my kids to participate in his school lesson had I not already sold them for stem cell research back when there was some confusion as to what his Executive Order really meant. However:

    “I think he’s done a very admirable job so far, in a virtually hopeless situation he’s been handed since he got elected (shitty economy + pile of shit situation handed him by past president)”

    Since you brought it up, could you please explain something that he has done for the economy that has had any significance? Hint: Please say the Stimulus Package, because I like talking about that.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/lawyergay/ lawyergay

    Baroness: Right on. And I think you may tragically be right about race playing a role here. Obama’s almost pathologically determined not to bust balls or get anyone riled up. That may be temperament or it could be a response to what is essentially the heckler’s veto we’ve been hearing ever since the election from the racist radical right. Obama’s not just been reaching across the aisle, he’s been giving reacharounds across the aisle, and I think you’re right that it’s going to doom him to a single term.

    Hip: The problem I have with the “he doesn’t have the votes” argument re: the public option is that the White House has been perfectly happy to twist arms and impose discipline when it initially appeared that legislation it really seemed to want didn’t have enough votes. The cap and trade bill is a perfect example: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/26/house.energy/index.html

    You can’t tell me that when Rahm Emanuel comes all rond de jambing into your office spewing a torrent of expletives and threatening to have the DNC defund your upcoming reelection campaign that you’re not going to at least reconsider your vote on whatever it is he wants. The fact is that Rahm and Obama’s political team don’t want real health care reform because that would mean kissing pharmaceutical and insurance industry money goodbye. And if that sounds cynical, well, I suppose it is.

    I also think you misread or at least misinterpreted what Baroness wrote about race playing a role in all this. I certainly didn’t get “cowardly black man” from her comment, and at the very least there’s certainly nothing comparable between what she wrote and the kind of poisonous irrational hatred coming from the racist far right.

    No one is sitting around being childishly furious at Obama for fucking up so much–particularly health care–in his short 8 months as president. I am reasonably pissed off. We have been told time and again that Obama can’t do the right and just thing on Guantanamo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, DOMA, even the stimulus bill (too small, too many tax cuts) because he needed to conserve political capital for this health care battle. Keep in mind that he ran for president on health care reform with a public option. Call me old fashioned, but I think politicians should be held to account when they break their campaign promises.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/lawyergay/ lawyergay

    There’s a petition you can sign encouraging Obama to keep fighting for a public insurance option:

    http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/5649/t/4951/content.jsp?content_KEY=2793&tag=pod_digby

    Senators and members of congress:

    http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

    https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/chillbearlatrigue/ Chillbear Latrigue

    @Ness: I promised to come back and pick up my previous slack and here I am.

    I have to answer one of your questions with a question. What are the “relentless scare tactics” that FOX news has been using? I have watched a lot of FOX News over the summer. I’ve seen people discussing differing viewpoints, but I haven’t seen scare tactics. In fact, I’ve seen a few pundits talk about how ridiculous the notion of “Death Panels” was.

    You may have a point about the polls. Most of the articles that I find, talk about the polls falling, but offer very little information as to what was asked, the methodology, etc. So, I’ll concede that point so as not to get bogged down in research.

    “I agree: we don’t know what the bill will be. But it’s not like any of us knew what was in the Patriot Act either.” So, you suggest that we as citizens back a bill that hasn’t been adequately explained to us because of past practice?

    After this, you started to pretend that you’ve known me to get behind every military spending bill since the beginning of the Cold War, despite the fact that I’ve only been posting for about half a year. So let me correct the record. When I think we need to spend money on the military I am in favor of it. However, I am not in favor of the way the government never seems to plan for inevitabilities and has to borrow every time they embark on a new project. I was always against the deficits that the last administration ran up. I don’t pick and choose my outrage as you suggest without basis.

    I do in fact think that our current system is sustainable. That is not the same as saying that it is wise, efficient or fair. It also doesn’t mean that as long as the government comes up with something it’s going to be better than what we have. I don’t believe that deficit spending is sustainable and this bill will help insure that spending more than we make is the status quo.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/lawyergay/ lawyergay

    Chillbear: There’s nothing in any way complicated about administering a public insurance option. It’s just Medicare for people under 65. It only gets hairy when you start looking at the politics.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/seadebris/ seadebris

    CB

    I have strong doubts that you and I will find common ground on this issue. Here is my quick reply. Other countries are not necessarily aiming for corporate-level efficiency in the delivery of health care. The French system aims for effectiveness, as well as efficiency.

    By taking care of people’s preventative health care needs, efficiency and effectiveness are combined.

    Not all doctors in EU countries make house calls. Some choose to do it, because it is effective and because they truly care about their patients well being. I would propose that a house call to a patient is a more efficient and effective way of dealing with someone that is too sick to leave their home but not so sick that they need to be seen in the hospital emergency room. This leaves the emergency room staff to deal with true emergencies.

    I lived in France for 3 years. I also received medical care in the UK and the Netherlands. In each place I was treated efficiently and effectively. How is it paid for? It is paid for just the same way that your medicare will be paid for when that time comes for you.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/chillbearlatrigue/ Chillbear Latrigue

    @LG: I don’t agree administering a healthcare plan is without complexity, but that wasn’t really the thrust of my argument.

    @SD: The question that I raised for you wasn’t really about the “healthcare debate,” but rather about one aspect of the European plan that I found interesting.

    However, in your explanation you did hit on something that has constantly irked me in these discussions: “It is paid for just the same way that your medicare will be paid for when that time comes for you.”

    Medicare is paid for by printing money. It is horribly financially inefficient. When people say that it runs well, they are talking about the service end of Medicare not the actual inner workings of the bureaucracy. If the public option is to be another Medicare then it certainly does not have my support.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/banjo-seakitten/ Banjo-SeaKitten

    Hello, everyone. I feel like Dorothy today as I wake up in my little Wordsmoker bed to see all the wonderful, familiar faces around me. It’s my first comment here.

    I’m moved by all of your brilliance as per usual. And Chillbear, while I probably disagree with some of what you say, you’re always so reasonable and likable.

    I’ve been having this debate with progressive Dems since oh, about 1994 when Newt Gingrich tried to run down democracy with his mean-mobile. I have cried out for sound bites, sexiness, distillations and Hallmark quotables but so far, nada. I have tried in my own way at past Meet-ups and such. Sound bites win. Glenn Beck will continue to school us.

    Relatedly, I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy-tinfoil hatter on my very first comment (that will come later!), but I did get a chill in my bones when I heard Karl Rove say eons ago that, “Obama would win in a landslide.” I still wonder how a fairly liberal (c’mon, he wants to be) Chicago-based, African American Democrat with a Muslin name got elected in this forever climate of war and backwater stupidity. I certainly expected the first Black president to be some sort of right-wing poster boy. Still wondering about that.

    Anyway, Digby and Wolcott are spot-on of course (as are you lovelies, Lawyer Gay and Baroness). I’m tired of “dead-dick” policy terms, as Wolcott eloquently states.

    Single Payer, now.

    HI VIRUS, you have made me laugh and cry every day that I have lurked, slunk around, voyeur’d and loitered on this site. You do a fantastic job.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/mockingbird/ mockingbird

    I just want a system where I’m not penalized for having pre-existing conditions, even though I’ve never spent a day of my life without medical coverage. It’s not my fault I have migraines, or depression, or allergies, or endometriosis, so why should I be punished for keeping those conditions managed and under control so I can work and lead a normal life?

    I want a system where I don’t have to worry about suddenly having my doctors changed on me, because they no longer take my insurance or my insurance is changed by my employer. Because it is not fun having to bring new doctors up to speed on my extensive medical history. It’s also not fun to worry that I might end up with doctors like the one who thought my having tinnitus and daily headaches that felt like I was hit in the face with a hammer were just things I should put up with. Or the one who told me it was impossible I was having the migraine symptoms I described to her. Or the one who seemed to have narcolepsy and kept nodding off during my appointment. Keeping the same doctors also avoids unnecessarily repeating tests, like the time I got to enjoy three pelvic exams in two weeks.

    I want a system where I’m not spending hours on the phone with the medical billing office trying to get them to properly code things so my insurance will actually pay them, and then have to repeat that process like four times while wondering if it would just be easier to pay the $1400+ bill for preventive lab work my insurance should cover just to keep from having to go through the conversation again next month. And where I don’t have to examine every single piece of paper from both my insurance company and the medical billing idiots to try and figure out what I’m being charged for, and to avoid being charged twice for one doctor’s visit. Not being charged twice by two different offices for different amounts for the same pap smear would also be a bonus, as arguing that one from a less than private office phone is always a joy.

    I want a system where I have coverage for pre-natal care, and giving birth. Not that I’m planning on having a baby anytime soon, but it would be nice to be able to do so without having to decide between bankruptcy and giving birth in my bathroom. (Yes, I currently have insurance, a guaranteed issue individual plan with a $2500 deductible. Nope, no idea how they can refuse any maternity coverage.)

    I want a system where I still have coverage if I lose my job, or decide to move to another state. Like many people now, I’m currently underemployed. My parents are helping me out, because if I packed up and moved home god only knows if I’d be insurable in their state.

    I don’t think I’m asking for a lot, just what people in other first world countries get.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/lawyergay/ lawyergay

    Chillbear: You said this, and it was the heart of your initial response to Baroness:

    If I were to read your writing in isolation, I would be lead [sic] to believe that there is workable plan sitting on the sidelines that can’t be implemented because the champion that the people have selected is afraid of the backlash of a tiny minority of the electorate.

    Only there isn’t a workable plan. It’s a hodgepodge of ideas pasted together with deficit spending.

    Nonsense. Medicare works pretty well for the people who are entitled to enroll in it. I didn’t realize how precious the health care insurance and pharmaceutical industries were to you until now.

    The notion that health care is NOT a civil right takes a lot of ugly thinking to get to. I truly don’t believe you believe that.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/baroness/ Baroness

    @Misterhippity, whom I adore:

    “And Baroness, I really like you, so don’t get me wrong, but this really upset me:

    “I’m wondering where his race might actually be a liability- because he will not ever do anything bold or daring.”

    Are you really suggesting that, because his policy decisions have not hewn 100% to your own beliefs, this must mean that he is “a cowardly black man.” I really hope not, but I just don’t know how else to interpret what you wrote.

    That’s almost worse than the kind of racism that comes from the right.”

    “Cowardly black man” is a concept that has not ever crossed my consciousness ever in a thousand goddamned years Hippity, and i’m frankly aghast that anything like that was ever inferred from what I wrote- I feel stricken that that’s what you may have taken from what I wrote. I beg you to let me explain, because I will fucking die if you go on one second more believing that was what I meant to say.

    I said that Obama bears “a heavy mantle”, as our first African-American president, someone whose victory I personally cried with joy over. My meaning was: because he is extremely aware of this historic role, because he is very aware of the unease many racist Americans might feel about this, because he is determined to make sure his Presidency will be a dignified one, and he really will reach out to the people who loathe him.. My only point is that while that is an admirable thing, I was only musing aloud about whether that might constrain him somehow in the hand-to-hand combat about important legislation like health care. I probably expressed it inarticulately, but my point was that Obama has to be ten times as careful, ten times as conciliatory towards racist Southerners, than a white man would ever have to be.

    That’s what I meant. That Obama really does have to juggle the frankly awful, racist prejudices against him, reach out to the very people who hate him, and always be a conciliator, someone to soothe the fears of white racist Southerners who absolutlely mistrust him. I wonder if expending that sort of energy placating the freaks who get hopped up on Glenn Beck isn’t an exhausting sideshow, a distraction from getting important legislation passed.

    He has to be Mister Nice Guy all the time. And when crucial things are at stake, I wish he could be forceful about imperatives as health care legislation. I was trying to say, that if race weren’t an issue, there might be more momentum and drive. Without the soothing and handholding Obama feels impelled to do. That was my point.

    Hippity, I freaking adore you, and I hope you read this explanation of mine, because it kills me to think you thought I ever thought Obama was “cowardly”. He is far from it, I admire him immensely. He just has a ton of extra special baggage that the right wing just won’t let go, and I was wondering if dealing with all that isn’t a distraction from actually getting things done.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/misterhippity/ MisterHippity

    @lawergay: Re: “I also think you misread or at least misinterpreted what Baroness wrote about race playing a role in all this. ”

    Nope — don’t think so. She’s saying he’s scared to rock the vote because he’s black. And you apparently agree. I know you think it’s some who political-psychology-of-being-the-first-black-prez thing, and I’m telling you that’s very condescending to Obama. And yes, racist.

    He’s acting based on his philosophy, which is to try to unify folks and bring them together, not tear down the other side and attack them. Will it work? Is it realistic? Maybe not. But it’s what he said he’d try to do during the campaign, if you were paying attention. If you want a hell-raiser who’s gonna give the right-wing hell, you elected the wrong guy. He (like me) believes that kind of highly partisan fighting/demonizing, from both sides, is ruining this country, and we’ll never get anything accomplished if we give into it.

    Regarding the public option: All the Rahm Emanuel arm-twisting in the world will not persuade some of these blue-dog dems to commit political suicide. The public option is NOT popular in their districts, and if they they think a vote in favor of it will cost them the election (and I think that may be what the polls are telling them right now), they ain’t gonna vote for it. I think we need a creative solution that’ll accomplish the universal coverage that a public option plans to provide, but using a different name/method that’s more palatable to moderate voters. And that’s not as expensive to taxpayers … we are running up an pretty frickin’ scary budget deficit right now after all.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/misterhippity/ MisterHippity

    @Baroness: Yes, I get your point about Obama and race. Sorry I upset you so much. I guess I shouldn’t have used the phrase “cowardly black man” – that was a low blow.

    BUT I still disagree with your point – vehemently. The way he is behaving politically has NOTHING to do with his race. And I’m sorry, but I think that suggesting the same is … well, let’s just stick to calling it “racially condescending,” ok? I know it isn’t your intent, but it’s still what i get from what you’re saying.

    Anyway, I like you too much to fight like this. I need to back off from these political debates, because my very-liberal friends get so upset, and never get the point I’m making anyway, so it isn’t worth it. But I think you are all being idealistic to a fault — and highly unrealistic.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/baroness/ Baroness

    @Monsieur ChillBear Lartrigue: Stop being so charming, rational, and dashing. God, I feel like I’m arguing with Clark Gable with you. You slap me and call me a silly bitch, and I like it. If you don’t have a moustache, I think you should think about it.

    I regret my unfortunate comments last night about Florida, it was unfair and off topic. (Someday I’ll wear a flowing Mumuu by Uli from Project Runway and wonder where Miami’s been all my life.)

    Fond of you, Chill Bear. I still mean what i say, sometimes late I’ll dive into politics, forcefully and verbally . I appreciate your tolerance and kind opposition. It’s never personal.

    As for your assertion that FOX News hasn’t been an enthusiastic assassin of all that’s good and decent in the world, a hearty laugh. I must catch more of FOX’s greatest hits than you do. Glenn Beck alone, believe me the network is Anti-Obama Central, a clearinghouse for every right-wing conspiracy theorist flaring on the Internet. Don’t make me laugh. (Or rather, do, I like a laugh.)

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/chillbearlatrigue/ Chillbear Latrigue

    @LG: I was referring to the 900 page H.R. 3200 when I said that it was a hodgepodge of ideas, not a particular feature of the bill on which you happen to be sweet. That’s right. I said “sweet.”

    Again, Medicare works pretty well from a user standpoint. However it is also an ever expanding money pit and a prime example of why the government should not venture into yet another area of the healthcare arena.

    I’m going to try this one more time with you. Okay, in reality, I’m pretty likely to just keep repeating myself over and over again no matter how many times you post these things, but let’s just pretend for the moment that there is some sort of finality in what I’m about to say.

    I believe that people should have access to food, water, shelter, electricity, reasonable clothing, work, wages and even healthcare. However, there are definitely people out there who are not accessing one or more of the above necessities of life. While I am in favor of removing as many barriers as we can without adversely impacting the rest of society, I am not in favor of having the government simply collecting it and then giving it all away in a manner that they see as fair.

    Now for a little personal business. In the neighborhood I grew up in, if another man corrected your misused homonyms in front of the group, it would lead to a shoving match. I’m supposing that had you just cut and pasted what I wrote to the right of your fancy vertical line, everyone would know that it was me and not you that wrote “lead.” However, I understand that you had to make sure that everyone knew that it wasn’t you with your appropriate, if tacky, use of [sic].

    We live in different times now, so if you explain to me how you make that cool indent bar…well, I’m sure we could put this behind us.

    Sorry, about all of the grammar tough talk, LG. I’m in character.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/chillbearlatrigue/ Chillbear Latrigue

    @Ness: Sorry, about he double post. I’ll leave on an agreeable note. I am with you on Beck. That guy is out there. I am not at all thrilled with Florida and most of what BJon says about it is true. I was just born here. Lastly, I am pretty charming.

    I never get mad at you or LG or any of the WS crowd.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/baroness/ Baroness

    Hippity said: “Nope — don’t think so. She’s saying he’s scared to rock the vote because he’s black. And you apparently agree. I know you think it’s some who political-psychology-of-being-the-first-black-prez thing, and I’m telling you that’s very condescending to Obama. And yes, racist.”

    It’s condescending. And yes, racist.

    I think it’s far more condescending to give Obama a break for being an inneffectual wimp.

    I’m heartily disappointed that you are still saying it’s “racist” of me, specifically, for pointing out how very hamstrung he is by vast regions of the country who he must cater to, where actual racism runs quite deep, and is at the very heart of why they mistrust him so.

    If you want to reject my explanation, and say that my wondering aloud whether his having to appease Southern racists endlessly might distract him from the task at hand, so be it. You’ve twice accused me of “racism” here, Hippity, and it appalls me. If you can’t see the slightest nuance in what we’re talking about, if you equate discussing how Obama’s race does practically effect the palpable hostility afoot in the land, being drummed up constantly and subtextually by FOX and Glenn Beck around the clock-

    If you want to accuse me, or anyone, of how race still plays a part in the vast hostility out there towards Obama, so be it. By merely discussing how race plays a part, you’ve declared what I said “racist”, twice now. As if speaking of an issue were the same as endorsing it. When every other thing I’ve said points to quite the opposite conclusion.

    You didn’t read, accept, or comprehend my explanation. I brought up racism in the context of the battle that’s being fought- and you declared what I said “racist”. Thanks, a great label to be smeared with. I take great offense at it. I’ve tried to clarify, but subtlety seems lost on you. If saying race is a factor in the assaults on Obama’s presidency, and might hamper his efficacy in enacting policy, makes me a racist in your view, so be it. I’ve tried to explain. It’s hurtful to be called racist. Don’t think you even read what I wrote. Does it feel good, some stupid righteousness of the undergraduate? Sorry we can’t discuss the complexities like adults, while you’re busy throwing out serious accusations like “racist” at people like myself.

    Wounded to the core at that, thanks so very fucking much, Hippity. You failed to prove it, but I hope it felt good to declare me a racist. Disgusted here. You know me not at all.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/mediahohoho/ mediahohoho

    Leaving aside the philosophical question of whether access to affordable health care is a right or a commodity, if you think our health care delivery system isn’t in dire need of reform, you must live on a different planet. Or perhaps you work for a government entity.

    The truth is, expecting business to foot the bill for the greed of health insurance speculators is economic suicide. Many on the right suspect that the public option is a Trojan Horse designed to break the monopolies of insurance companies who list as their stakeholders, in order of importance, 1) share holders 2) vested company officers (check out the $1.8 billion golden parachute handed out to US Healthcare’s CEO a few years back and tell me they’re not raping patients). Last come doctors and patients.

    Want to know why the systems so fucked up? Greed. Want to know what you can do about it? Nothing.

    But if you want to advocate for reform and keep your conservative cred, then just ask your conservative breathren exactly what is inherently market-driven about this system. The reason I, as a consumer, can’t get affordable health insurance off the street is very simple: I have to compete with every large corporation and union in America. Those large pools make sure that I don’t have a fucking chance because they guarantee that the cost of premiums remains sky high. Ban employers from offering subsidized health insurance and I promise you insurance premiums will be within reach of every American within a month.

    Finally, if you think you’re not being taxed for healthcare already, with every bite you eat and every stitch of clothing you wear and every gallon you put in your car, you are, quite plainly, beyond reason. Just because the bill doesn’t come from the government doesn’t mean you’re not being taxed, Jack. Which would be fine, but we’re about to slip out of the top 30 when it comes to outcomes.

    My prediction is that we’re one good epidemic away from a single-payer government sponsored plan, a la the rest of the civilized world. Let’s hope it’s an epidemic that kills the stupid.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/chillbearlatrigue/ Chillbear Latrigue

    “But if you want to advocate for reform and keep your conservative cred, then just ask your conservative breathren exactly what is inherently market-driven about this system.” An excellent point in a really good post. I’ve asked myself this question a number of times.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/lawyergay/ lawyergay

    Chillbear: To make that cool indent thing, click the “b-quote” button with the cursor at the beginning of the text you want to indent and then again with the cursor at the end of the text you want to indent.

    As far as siccing the sic on you, I do it out of force of habit from too many years spent quoting other lawyers’ shittily written briefs. No personal disrespect or figurative shoving intended.

    Re: the other stuff. It sounds like your opposition to Medicare for all or whatever we’re going to end up calling health care reform comes down to a fear of government rationing care. But we already do that by ability to pay. So even if your worst nightmare of government rationing came true–and what would that be, exactly?–it couldn’t possibly be more grotesque or unjust than the system we have now, could it?

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/misterhippity/ MisterHippity

    Baroness: OH MY GOD … I’m SO SORRY. I see that I’ve very gravely offended you and I’m very sorry.

    I should have known better than to use the inflammatory “R” word. It was inappropriate.

    I still don’t agree with your sentiment, but I should never have used *that word* to describe it. Please accept my humble apology for that.

    But I DO think I understood all the subtleties of your argument. I read your comments very carefully. And I’m sorry, but I do still don’t agree with your original point: You assume that all of these sensitive issues regarding southerners and racism etc. are compelling Obama to behave less forcefully on healthcare and other issues than if he were white. And I’m telling you i disagree. I.e., I do not believe that these racial issues are driving his political behavior in the way that you describe.

    Here’s what probably set me off: I have been upset for some time by the whiff of condescension I detect in similar sentiments I’ve heard expressed by other liberals … i.e., “It’s too bad that, because he’s black, he can’t fight back hard enough.” In know that’s an oversimplification of your own point, but still. It set me off.

    But I *sincerely apologize* for calling your sentiment a racist one (Note: I never called YOU a racist; just the sentiment you expressed). BAD, bad word to use. Insensitive on my part – please forgive me.

    (And from now on, I’m staying the fuck OUT of these political threads and sticking to jokes.)

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/wrapitup/ Wrapitup

    Mister Hippity: (man, I cannot type that without cracking up) I request that you don’t stay the fuck out of the political threads from now on. It would be a total shame to not hear your voice on political matters. I have nothing against your jokes. But your opinions on serious things are pretty cool too. It would be a loss for everyone if you only kept them to yourself.

    I understand that the present situation is quite upsetting for everyone involved. I’m really hoping that things get resolved to everyone’s satisfaction and I can convince you out of taking drastic action like restricting yourself from commenting on politics.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/baroness/ Baroness

    Hippity, I really do adore you. I’m sorry I rendered disagreement with twenty times the words necessary, overdoing it. I see and respect your point, I do.

    Every Internet meeting-place and message board is different; in some places verbal battle is encouraged, some places it’s subtler. Rapidly shifting between different milieux, I need to be more careful about that, not take offense, let it go.

    Sometimes arguing about politics is energizing, sometimes it’s dismal, depending on the place and the characters involved in discussion. I shouldn’t have took offense to what you said, but I suppose I did. No matter, we’re more sympathetic than not.

    Just want to say I really like and appreciate you Mr. Hippity, always. I value you and your genial wit and your enthusiasm for bringing people together for your live-blogs. I really admire you, and I hope you read this.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/lawyergay/ lawyergay

    Baroness: Your point, i.e., talking about race is not inherently racist, nevertheless remains valid.

    Hip: That “whiff of condescenion” you detect is actually disappointment, at least as far as I’m concerned.

    People like me who believed Obama would summon some kind of backbone in dealing with mean-spirited and idiotic Congressional Republicans on really any issue at all–from torture to Bush’s wars of aggression to something as plainly unconstitutional as the executive branch’s “faith-based initiatives”–have been disappointed to see him cave again and again. But in all the years I’ve been sitting in the stands watching politics play out in the national arena, I’ve never seen anything quite as depressing and dispiriting as Obama’s performance during this health care debate.

    Not to view race as playing some role in this almost inexplicable series of Obama surrenders is to be willfully blind to both the facts on the ground and the entire sweep of U.S. history. If you think it’s “racist” of me to say as much, then that’s your problem.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/misterhippity/ MisterHippity

    Lawergay: Then call me willfully blind. He’s disappointing you because he isn’t a liberal firebrand. But he was never a liberal firebrand. And that has NOTHING to do with the color of his skin.

    And I stand firm: To ascribe what you view as “surrenders” to political cowardice born of his race is … well, I won’t use the “r” word again. I’ll use the w word isntead – wrong.

    Look at it this way: What if Hillary Clinton were president, and the same series of events unfolded (I’m being purely hypothetical here, mind you – I’m not assuming she would have made the same choices if she were president).

    OK, now what if I argued that Hillary was behaving this way because she was a woman? Would what you and Baroness viewed that as sexist?

    Under the hyphothetical situation above, let me give you an example: Here’s what you just stated above, but with “Clinton” and “gender” substituted for “Obama” and “race.”

    “People like me who believed CLINTON would summon some kind of backbone in dealing with mean-spirited and idiotic Congressional Republicans on really any issue at all … have been disappointed to see HER cave again and again. … Not to view GENDER as playing some role in this almost inexplicable series of CLINTON surrenders is to be willfully blind to both the facts on the ground and the entire sweep of U.S. history.”

    That would be pretty condescending to President Hillary Clinton, woudlnt’ it? And a tad sexist too, wouldn’t you admit?

    Ok, now let’s try one of the statements that Baroness made earlier in the thread, but doing the same thing — the reference will now be to “President Hillary Clinton” and gender rather than President Obama and race. let’s see how it sounds.

    “I said that CLINTON bears ‘a heavy mantle,’ as our first FEMALE president, someone whose victory I personally cried with joy over. My meaning was: because SHE is extremely aware of this historic role, because SHE is very aware of the unease many SEXIST Americans might feel about this, because SHE is determined to make sure HER Presidency will be a dignified one, SHE really will reach out to the people who loathe HER … I was only musing aloud about whether that might constrain HER somehow in the hand-to-hand combat about important legislation like health care. … CLINTON has to be ten times as careful, ten times as conciliatory towards SEXIST Southerners, than a MAN would ever have to be. …

    I wish SHE could be forceful about imperatives as health care legislation. … If GENDER weren’t an issue, there might be more momentum and drive.”

    Just think about it. I think the two examples are comparable. SO why do the examples above sound insulting and condescending to “President Hillary Clinton,” but not (in their original versions) to Presdient Obama?

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/lawyergay/ lawyergay

    Hip: Would it make a difference if a woman of color were making essentially the same argument as I think Baroness is and I most certainly am?

    Here’s the money quote from Melissa Harris-Lacewell’s essay in “The Nation” about the Sotomayor hearings, but I believe it applies with almost equal force to Obama or any prominent minority:

    The hearing was a performance of a broader set of social rules that govern race and gender interactions in American politics. Women, and most especially black and brown women, have to prove their fitness for public life by demonstrating the ability to endure harsh brutality without openly fighting back. The ability to bear up under public degradation is a test of worth. America’s favorite black woman heroine is Rosa Parks, a woman who is remembered as silently enduring the humiliation of being ejected from a public bus for refusing to comply with segregated seating.

    Read the whole thing. Here’s the link: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/452587/sotomayor_and_the_politics_of_public_humiliation

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/baroness/ Baroness

    All right- Hippity i am going to object to your seizing and rephrasing my words there. Sorry, it’s a writer’s thing. Any writer will dislike it.

    Hippity , here is the big fucking difference: Americans aren’t really that prejudiced against women. They have mothers and sisters. They fall in love and marry women. They have daughters. Or they are actually women! If you are trying to say there’s some equivalence, if you want to keep beating this drum and deny that there is a massive, race-based animus against Obama: well, you’re arguing with the wrong people, here I think.

    If you don’t think Obama’s race matters, you don’t seem very informed about the 24/7 assault on him from right-wing media and Fox. It’s nonstop, and they’re not stupid enough to actually say WHY they utterly despise him. But the dog-whistles and implications are all there. If this is news to you, then you seem ill-informed about the state of the day to day political battle that’s being waged. And yes, Obama’s race unfortunately does play a part in why right-wingers irrationally hate him.

    Yet you’re still harping on what I said, as if bringing this salient factor up was de facto racist in itself. And i suppose you reject my apology, my hope you weren’t offended by speaking like adults about what’s real, what’s happening, the tactics of hostile forces amassed inthe media to bring Obama down.

    Instead you’re here arguing with Lawyergay and me about words. What you thought was indelicate phrasing on my part, offending your delicate PC sensibilities. You sound like an undergraduate who has no idea how the real world works, and if you are persisting in your complaint that the problem is my pointing out that Obama’s race is a factor his enemies are using against him to stoke fear and destroy his Presidency..

    ..is the same thing as my being “racist”- well it boggles my mind. No wonder we progressives can’t get anything done when it bogs down to this- taking really cheap offense at words and slinging accusations of political incorrectness. While our opponents flood the media and the Internet with misinformation and parents take their kids out of school so they won’t be “indoctrinated” by that scary man. You don’t think race plays a part of this hostility? Wish I lived in your dream world. Done explaining, but hopefully the grownups can occasionally speak of politics without your being mortally offended. God.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/misterhippity/ MisterHippity

    Baroness, I am no longer characterizing your original position as “racist” — I already apologized for doing so in the first place — it was wrong and inflammatory.

    Furthermore I am not NOT “rejecting your apology.” I’ve already apologized to you, profusely, myself, remember?

    And I am not “mortally offended” in the least — I don’t know where you’re getting that from.

    I was now actually trying to continue an intelligent “grown-up” debate as you put it. Lawergay posted a response, and I responded back. But apparently, disagreeing with you two on this issue is going to continue to upset you personally, so I guess I’m gonna have to stop.

    For the last time: I am not denying any of what you are saying about how “race is a factor his enemies are using against (Obama) to stoke fear and destroy his Presidency.” I couldn’t agree more. And I agree with the rest of your observations along the same vein.

    What I disagree with is our insistence that OBAMA IS ALLOWING *THIS FACTOR* TO WEAKEN HIS ABILITY TO GOVERN FORCEFULLY. You keep insisting that this is influencing his own political behavior. And I’m simply trying to point out that I believe, contrary to your position, that he’s his own man, and he’s taking the positions he’s taking because he believes in them (rightly or wrongly) — not because he believes he has to due to the political dynamics of race .

    I’m not trying to make any “PC” point. I think it’s pretty clear by now that YOU are entirely missing MY point. I’m trying to allow Obama to to be given some credit for behaving based on his beliefs, not based on some racial-political chess game. It would be offensive to Clinton to suggest that she’s cramping her style based on male chauvinism, and it’s equally offensive to Obama to suggest that he’s allowing racists to cramp his own style. Ok, the comparison was perhaps a bit facile, but you DO see my point, don’t you?

    But I should have stuck to my earlier inclination, and bowed out of political discussions on this site. It’s just not worth it.

    Peace! Let us no longer fight. Can’t we all just get along?

    • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/viruswithshoes/ VirusWithShoes

      WHAT IS UP WITH THIS THREAD? PEOPLE ALMOST NEVER GET INTO HEATED DISCUSSIONS ABOUT POLITICS, EVER!

      I’m going to forward this to CNBC or something. THIS IS ALL SO NEW.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/misterhippity/ MisterHippity

    Lawergay, whatever Melissa Harris-Lacewell’s point about Sotomayor and the rest does not prove that Barack Obama is allowing this stuff to influence his own political behavior. You can quote what 50 different writers, male or female, representing a whole rainbow of skin colors wrote in The Nation, and I don’t think that means you can therefore crawl inside Barack Obama’s brain and say with such forceful certainty that you know that this factor is what is, in fact, what’s causing Obama to behave politically the way he’s behaving.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/lawyergay/ lawyergay

    Hip: I understand what you’re saying. I admit I’m not a mind-reader. I’ve never thought Obama was some kind of liberal firebrand. I wasn’t even planning on voting for him until the insane Sarah Palin entered the picture.

    But the fact remains that he ran on a platform that included a “Medicare for all”-type health insurance option, something that he seems to have abandoned in the face of the most outrageous and shameful attacks from crazy racists and their plutocrat puppet masters. I guess we’ll know more about where he really stands after his speech tonight.

    My only point throughout has been that it’s not “racist” to speculate that Obama’s stunning passivity in office so far–and in particular his seeming unwillingness to ruffle establishment feathers or take even modest steps toward fulfilling his most basic campaign promises–has something to do with the dynamic that Harris-Lacewell is talking about.

    It’s just a fact that historically disadvantaged minorities are frequently made to run a humiliating gauntlet before being allowed to advance into the innermost precincts of power in this country. And enduring this kind of treatment without fighting back is a prerequisite for attaining those positions.

    If you do have the unmitigated gall to defend yourself, then you’re “hysterical” (if you’re a woman), or you’re an “angry black man,” or–worst of all–you’re an “angry black woman” and therefore unfit for such positions and are quietly ushered offstage. Occasionally, you might even get yourself killed.

    I realize you find it offensive even to think along these lines, and I suppose we’re simply going to have to agree to disagree about this. I don’t need to have the last word here, but I don’t really think I have much more to say on this subject, and I’m content to drop it. When’s the next Top Chef liveblog?

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/mama-penguino-2-2-2/ Mama Penguino

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/mama-penguino-2-2-2/ Mama Penguino

    OMG, it worked! This is for all of you, because I love all of you, and because you’re all brilliant and passionate and wonderful.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/bjonston/ BJonston

    I still love Obama. And I love Wordsmoker. I’ve gotten more intelligent discourse up in here over the past month than I ever got from any other source in this miserable shit-stain backwater cesspool of a state I share with Chillbear. Thank you. All of you.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/misterhippity/ MisterHippity

    Oh no, we’re re-posting THIS thread and bringing all my my obnoxious comments back to prominence again? Dammit.

    This is a good opportunity to apologize to Lawergay — and especially to Baroness — for being kind of prick in this comment thread earlier this week.

    I’m sorry. I was having kind of a “bad hair week,” I guess.

    Forgive me Baroness!! I won’t be obnoxious to you again, I promise! :-)

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/perverseus/ perverseus

    An interesting discussion. I think we can all agree that the current system of health care in the United States is flawed. I would also argue that both Republicans and Democrats are playing politics instead of legitimately trying to work together to create a reasonable way to improve health care. A few brief points:

    1) Health care is not a right, nor can it ever legitimately be a right. You need medical professionals to administer health care. That means if health care is a right, you are requiring medical professionals to give their time, education, and experience to someone else, which of course impedes the rights of the medical professional. Universal health care is a noble goal, but it cannot be a right. Sorry, just doesn’t work that way.

    2) A private health care plan cannot legitimately compete with a government-funded health care plan, because the government-funded health care plan can go billions of dollars into debt and still function. That is not a sustainable business model for the private sector. Therefore, understand that any health care overhaul that involves a government option will eventually only have a government option.

    3) Our federal government can’t run the post office properly (it’s in the red), couldn’t transition to DTV on time (it got delayed because they failed to provide adequate funds for converter box coupons), and didn’t even manage the “cash for clunkers” car rebate program well. And you want these people in charge of your health care? Really?

    4) Health insurance issues can’t be fixed overnight, but I think one way to start is to allow insurance companies to work on a national level, instead of on a state-by-state basis. Want lower prices and a better product? Increase competition in the marketplace.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/notwavingbutdrowning/ notwavingbutdrowning

    It is late and I must get to sleep but I just have to comment that this just doesn’t make a lick of sense:

    “1) Health care is not a right, nor can it ever legitimately be a right. You need medical professionals to administer health care. That means if health care is a right, you are requiring medical professionals to give their time, education, and experience to someone else, which of course impedes the rights of the medical professional. Universal health care is a noble goal, but it cannot be a right. Sorry, just doesn’t work that way.”

    That imperious little “Sorry it just doesn’t work that way” flourish at the end may make YOU feel that you have offered us some important insight on this matter, but you have not.

    Would you make that same argument with regard to education?

    We bestow “rights” (such as health care) because we have a shared set of beliefs in what makes us civilized, not to mention what makes us humane. For example we don’t think it is okay to let people die from lack of food or shelter or medical care.

    Frankly, these are the things that fall under the auspices of truths that we hold to be self-evident. Unless we are completely selfish bastards. We don’t just live in a free market. We live in a society.

    Okay. I’m going to stop now and leave this matter to people who are better political and moral philosophers than I am. Also because if I continue to engage with this nonsense my head might explode.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/notwavingbutdrowning/ notwavingbutdrowning

    Of course we don’t have a “free market” at all but that’s another issue.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/perverseus/ perverseus

    Yes, Notwavingbutdrowning (love the name, by the way), I would make the same argument with regard to education. It is not a right. It is a privilege. Big difference. If you can grasp that concept, then perhaps I will feel that I have offered some important insight, after all.

    However, for the record, it is my right to be a selfish bastard.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/wrapitup/ Wrapitup

    @Perverseus: Why do you believe that education is a privilege?

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/chillbearlatrigue/ Chillbear Latrigue

    @Wrap: I’m going to counter with a question, despite the fact that your question wasn’t directed to me. What makes anything a right and not a privilege? I don’t know that I necessarily agree that education is a privilege, but I could make an argument that it eventually stops being a right and becomes a priviledge at some point. I actually don’t want to see anyone go without things, but I am reluctant to describe every life’s necessity as a right. I’m sorry for jumping in here, but there hasn’t been much posted this weekend and I’m starving for comments. Wow. I sound desperate.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/mama-penguino-2-2-2/ Mama Penguino

    @Chillbear: If you are that hungry, you could have sent a nice thank-you e-mail for the squirrel crasher picture I made for you. Oh, that’s okay. I’m sure you were busy.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/perverseus/ perverseus

    @Wrap: If something is not specifically identified as a right in the U.S. Constitution, then it is not a right.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/bjonston/ BJonston

    @Perverseus: Maybe we should amend the constitution. In any event, just because the Constitution doesn’t contain an express right to universal healthcare for all U.S. citizens (curiously, prison inmates do enjoy a constitutional right to healthcare), Congress still could very easily craft a statutory right to healthcare whenever it damn well pleases. And failing that, the Supreme Court can perhaps find one in the shadows and penumbras of the bill of rights. As it has done before. The bottom line is this is the only allegedly “civilized” industrialized democracy on earth that doesn’t have a functional public healthcare system for the benefit of all citizens. And let me close by noting that the current popular pass-time of Americans deriding the substantially more efficient and functional public healthcare systems of Britain and Canada is frankly as laughable as it is pathetic.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/bjonston/ BJonston

    @Perve: Our federal government can’t run the post office properly (it’s in the red), couldn’t transition to DTV on time (it got delayed because they failed to provide adequate funds for converter box coupons), and didn’t even manage the “cash for clunkers” car rebate program well. And you want these people in charge of your health care? Really?

    Funny, I don’t hear anybody complaining about how inefficient or inept the Federal government is at running our military. The Federally-run military in an organization that is second to none on Earth and the reason is we spend more money on defense that virtually anything else. In other words our government’s priority is defense. Which is fine. But your argument that the government can’t run anything well is bullshit in light of it’s undeniable aptitude at managing the most advanced military organization in human history.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/bjonston/ BJonston

    @Perve: Also, why don’t you ask any member of Congress if their own personal healthcare system as employees of the Federal government is as crappy as you would have us believe it is solely by virtue of being administered by the Federal government. From what I hear it’s pretty good.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/wrapitup/ Wrapitup

    It doesn’t matter, Beej. You’re a liberal.You have your head in the clouds and you don’t know how to be pragmatic. You need to bow down before megacorporations and acknowledge their incredible redemptive power. The individual doesn’t matter. The institution does, but only as long as it’s a for-profit corporate entity. And sure the socialists in Britain and Canada do have universal healthcare but do we Americans really want to spoil and coddle our citizens that way?

    In America, poverty is always the fault of the individual, not the institution. Those effeminate Europeans need universal healthcare because they don’t offer their citizens the incredible opportunities that we offer ours. Also, God helps those who themselves. Thus, giving some toothless crack whore (who represents most Americans without healthcare, btw) access to government-subsidized medical care is a cynical move that will lead us further into the black pit of atheism.

    The only people who can save us are heroic CEOs. Sure they destroyed our manufacturing base, squandered our savings and investments, and drove millions of people into bankruptcy because their victims happened to have one catastrophic health problem. But they’re fighting a brave battle against the Evil Coastal Elitist Hippies. And really that’s all that matters. We’ve already handed over our money and our future to corporate CEOs and board members. Why not hand over all of our health as well? To say no would be un-American.

    After all, in the USA, what truly matters is not the individual but the megacorporation. Anyone who doesn’t like it is a dirty hippie who can go live in France. They’ll have way better healthcare there. But who needs better healthcare if you’re surrounded by pantywaists?

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/perverseus/ perverseus

    @Bjonston: I couldn’t agree more. Our federal government does a masterful job on the military. And thank God they do, or we wouldn’t have the freedom to have discussions like this.

    I’ve also heard that members of Congress have amazing health care coverage, and it makes me wonder if we common folk would be offered coverage that was equal to what they get through a government-based plan. Methinks we’d get the short end of that stick.

    As far as creating a Constitutional amendment for universal health care, I just don’t think it would fly because it would basically turn medical professionals into indentured servants. Sort of like if we created a Constitutional amendment for universal food distribution — that would mean the government could require farmers to produce particular crops. It’s a legal slippery slope that can lead to fascism. And I don’t think most Americans really want to go that route. The hippies? Maybe.

    As I said in my very first comment, this country needs health care reform. I would just rather see it handled from the private sector, that’s all. And as far as the “more efficient” medical systems in England and Canada, I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. My mother required kidney dialysis later in life, and would have been denied that service in the UK because she was too old. Difficult for me to get behind a system like that.

    @Wrap: Sarcasm aside (at least I really hope it was sarcasm), this country is great because of the efforts of individuals — and sometimes those efforts are so effective that they gather supporters and grow into corporations. All corporations are not evil, but most of them want to turn a profit, which is not a bad thing. It’s called capitalism. I’m a fan.

    We are also a very charitable country, which is why people who can’t afford to pay for emergency medical care aren’t turned away at the ER. Of course, that means you and I have to pay for their medical care when we pay for our own, but as I said, we’re charitable. Or, to use your word, coddling. Because, as you’ve no doubt noticed, there are some people in this country who don’t want to work terribly hard or take responsibility for their own actions and choices. The real charity cases need our help; the others need our work ethic.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/chillbearlatrigue/ Chillbear Latrigue

    @Wrap: Would you give me an example of one country that has a socialist economy that is not either dependent on the US militarily or economically or is not an abysmal failure?

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/lawyergay/ lawyergay

    Perverseus: I just wanted to point out re: your point 1 above that needing another party to “administer” a service doesn’t mean that fundamental rights cannot be involved.

    There’s a 5th amendment right to counsel for criminal defendants. Does that mean that the lawyers who represent them are “indentured servants”?

    There’s a 5th amendment right to be read Miranda warnings by an arresting police officer. Does that mean that the police officers who recite them are indentured servants?

    There’s a 5th amendment right to privacy that, among other things, guarantees all of us the right to access birth control and women the right to decide whether they will carry a pregnancy to term. Does that mean that the pharmacists and doctors who dispense birth control and provide medical services are indentured servants?

    The commerce clause of Article I and the 14th amendment guarantee that racial and ethnic minorities have the right to eat lunch in restaurants open to the public and sit pretty much anywhere they want to on a bus. Does that mean that waitress working the lunch counter and the guy driving the bus are indentured servants?

    Of course not. I don’t know where you grew up, but in my United States of America, there is a safe harbor for people who don’t want to dispense birth control or serve people of a different race in a restaurant or read criminal suspects their Miranda warnings. It’s called “getting another job.”

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/lawyergay/ lawyergay

    Confidential to Perverseus: In the future, it might serve you well to keep in mind that just because you dislike a certain policy or feature of our democratic republic doesn’t mean that it “just doesn’t work that way.” You might be surprised to learn which rights and Constitutional guarantees actually work in your favor. For instance, have you ever used a condom?

    While there may very well be some reasonable arguments to be made against enshrining health care as a civil right, yours are not among them.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/chillbearlatrigue/ Chillbear Latrigue

    @LG: Condoms? Those are for sailors, baby!

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/lawyergay/ lawyergay

    Chillbear: A country with what I would describe as “social insurance” that is doing just fine without the military bear-hug of the United States would be Sweden.

    It has a fully-functioning and independent military-industrial (and cheap-ass furniture) complex without the brutal dog-eat-dog unregulated hypercapitalism that we all seem doomed to endure here. In fact, some of the richest and therefore best people in the world are Swedes!

    No country actively engaged in global trade is economically independent of the United States, and that portion of your argument is nothing more than a stalking horse for your poorly-conceived and biased notion that any sort of by-the-people-for-the-people government is inherently corrupt and inefficient.

    P.S. The reason no country whose economy depends even in part on global trade currently exists independent of the U.S. is because we deliberately made ourselves the world’s uber-shopper and debt whore by mortgaging and remortgaging our overvalued real estate and then used the cash to buy Saabs and Volvos and piece-of-shit Ikea sectionals because we had the perfect spot in our great rooms and four-car garages for them.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/bjonston/ BJonston

    @Perve: Without knowing the details of your mother’s kidney disease, I suspect your conclusion that she would have been denied dialysis outright in either Canada or England is wrong at best and disingenuous at worst. In fact, it sounds like a talking point routinely bandied about on Fox News whilst deliberately ignoring the possibility that you can usually choose to purchase private healthcare in both Canada and England if the local universal public health option proves to be too cumbersome or unavailable. The problem with the whole debate in fact is that the opponents of a public health option always conveniently forget to mention that whoever wants to stay on a privately funded, privately managed health plan, will always have the liberty to do so.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/lawyergay/ lawyergay

    Perverseus: I must admit that I’m disappointed but not at all surprised that you haven’t been poking around this thread today. I hope for a bit more in the way of discussion from the radical/misinformed “libertarians” out there.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/perverseus/ perverseus

    @Lawyergay: Sorry, man, I’ve been working all day. Gotta make the money to generate the taxes to keep paying for all those entitlements you so desperately crave.

    You know, you might be the first person in history to call me radical, which I appreciate. Generally, I am considered as vanilla as … well, vanilla.

    Anyway, your 5th amendment argument is not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison, but I appreciate the attempt. Remember, the right to counsel means the government has to provide counsel, which is why we have public defenders. Miranda rights are provided by police officers who work for the government. So, based on your logic, if health care is to be a right, then doctors must become government employees. Perhaps my use of the term “indentured servants” was too strong — government employee is a bit easier to swallow. Unless you’re a medical professional who wants to actually pay back your student loans before you retire.

    Condoms are for godless heathens, by the way.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/lawyergay/ lawyergay

    Perverseus: No problem. I don’t know you, but if you earn wages, i.e., trade your labor for money, then you probably pay a higher income tax rate than your average Wall Street hedge-funder (they pay 15 percent, did you know that?). I thank you for your sacrifice.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/lawyergay/ lawyergay

    Perverseus: One more thing: Attorneys who do public defense work in my state are contractors, not employees. There’s an awful lot you seem not to know, and if there’s one thing I’ve learned the hard way in my career, then I would say that it’s a little bit dangerous to make assumptions on facts not in evidence.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/perverseus/ perverseus

    We have publicly elected public defenders in Florida, so that’s probably the disconnect. Still, I did like the “facts not in evidence” line. Makes you sound like Corbin Bernsen.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/lawyergay/ lawyergay

    Perverseus: I like to think of myself as more of a Bobby Donnell, but then again, who doesn’t?

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/perverseus/ perverseus

    @LG: Good point. I was partial to Michael Kuzak back in the day — he got to nail that Partridge Family chick and slay Medusa. Tough combination to beat.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/chillbearlatrigue/ Chillbear Latrigue

    @LG: In Florida, the public defender that would be appointed to you is an employee of the state. His ultimate boss is an elected official. They universally suck. The only reason that you have any chance at an acquittal using one of this barred toll collectors is because the person that is prosecuting you is also an employee of the state, and also very prone to suck. The best attorneys in the criminal justice system are private defense attorneys. That’s because the cream of the crop public defenders and assistant state attorneys all eventually go into private practice to make money. I don’t know how it works in Mass, because I’m not up there, but if it was my ass on the line I would rather drain the bank accounts and go into hock to hire my own mouthpiece than to trust a court appointed anything. However, I don’t work in Mass; I work in the suck hole of South Florida. The attorneys handling my side of the case are always state employees and make their careers out of keeping their prosecution rates high and career advancement instead of locking away criminals.

    Although, if you’re telling me that Massachusetts outsources their criminal defense work to private entities, that does sound like a huge improvement on the service end from what we have in Florida. It also sounds like a smaller government solution than what we have here. Hmm, small government, limited privatization? You’re growing, buddy.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/blix/ Blix

    CL: I see what you did there and I’m smiling.

  • http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/dahlelama/ DahlELama

    Has anyone read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/health/15book.html?em

    I’m looking to do some more general reading on the subject and wondering if anyone knows if it’s a worthwhile purchase…