The word, "politics", has a variety of meanings, but when we use it today, we generally think of the activities or affairs engaged in by a government, politician, or political party. When we hear phrases like "politics as usual", we are actually narrowing this down to a political party. So "politics as usual" means "you're voicing the opinion of your political party, not your own particular concerns".
"Politics as usual." "Scare tactics." "No legitimate concerns." These are the phrases that are being thrown out by the president, by democrats, and by the mainstream media when Americans voice their concerns regarding the entire question of a public health care option. You see, it can only be "politics" -- the opinion of a political party, not individuals -- because ... well, I don't know why. But what we're told is that if you disagree with the government's plan, just shut up. If you do voice a concern, it's not a genuine concern. President Obama and the democrats don't want to hear it. Nancy Pelosi said, "These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views -- but of the facts themselves." The President said, "I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking."
When the President told an audience in New Hampshire that his health care reform was similar to the U.S. Postal Service, we got a glimpse of the problem. We just heard that the Post Office is looking at a $7 billion loss this year and considering closing something like a thousand post offices. But the President assures us that he wants to provide a "deficit neutral" plan. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that this new health care plan will cost more than $1 trillion. The government will get the money from ... well, you do the math because I can't. If the USPS can't support itself in the open market, where will the government get the money without adding to our deficit or taking more money out of our pockets?
Our health care system is not good, they tell us. The World Health Organization rates us 37th, below most European plans and even Canada. The fact that many Canadians come to the U.S. for health care didn't seem to factor into the equation, I guess. France, they said, was number one. Of course, in France the government sets the price. And the French aren't nearly as enamored with their system as the World Health Organization. Besides, there is no doubt that France is a socialist country (one of the major concerns voiced by opponents of the President's plan).
So now we have ... concerns. There are voices worried about socialism in America. There are people that are worried about decline of the quality of care. Some are pretty sure that we're looking at a sharp increase in the deficit. And there are lots of questions about the truthfulness of what Washington is telling us. There are lots of things to think about, lots of things to question, lots of things that are at issue here. The odd thing is that none of them seem to be a matter of "Republicans versus Democrats". It doesn't really look like "politics as usual" to me ... unless, by "politics as usual", you mean "a particular political group attempting to gain more control over the people". But in this case that wouldn't be those voicing their concerns, would it?
18 comments:
On health care systems — U.S. only developed nation that does not provide health care for all its citizens. ~50 million uninsured + ~25 million underinsured + those that are rejected by the system (victims of rescission — insurance companies claim that only affects 0.5% of customers, but that ought to set warning bells off to anybody who understands math — if you're in that 5% of the pool that actually incurs heavy treatment cost, that means 10% chance you will get terminated by the insurance company) and people with pre-existing conditions (my children encounter this right now).
The bromide about people from Canada coming here doesn't acknowledge the truth that these are folks with money jumping ahead of the line for elective surgery or in front of those with more life-critical assessments. Canada system not without problems, but the voters there would never rescind what they have, and any political attempt to change their system would be met with public derision. Same for the system in France.
I really don't understand how self-confessed Christians do not believe we should not take care of our own.Are we a caring people? Some may snicker, and some may refer to our bleeding hearts, but how can anyone claim to be about family values if they are okay with tens of millions of families having little or no access to health care? When people talk about the impact on the deficit, I ask which is more important, money or people? I ask why these same critics rarely think twice about funding an illegal, immoral, unnecessary war. I ask why so few of these same critics raised an eyebrow when Bush cut taxes by nearly two trillion dollars, without bothering to explain its fiscal impact. I ask why so few of these same critics bothered to consider the fiscal impact of the multi-trillion dollar banks bailout. What are their values? What are ours? I don’t care what happens to the health insurance industry. It serves absolutely no social good. It impacts the actual health care of actual people in many of the exact ways people wrongly say national health care would. Its purpose is to make money for its shareholders, not to care for the health of people and society. There is no excuse for its existence. Every other industrialized nation manages to provide health care for its people, but we can’t. What’s wrong with us? What’s wrong with our values?
And that $1 trillion is over 10+ years. That's barely a dent into the military budget (which should be slashed in half, with no impact other than cutting the boondoggles and wasteful spending and even more more can be trimmed if we ceased and desisted from illegal and immoral invasions).
Naum,
You're giving me reasons why you think there should be health care reform. I was referencing not whether or not there should be, but whether or not there can be a debate. The President and the Democrats think it is ... what was Pelosi's phrase? ... "un-American" for people to dissent over this. No one, apparently, has genuine concerns over this issue; it's all politics. Your response makes me think that you concur that the only reason anyone would question the new system would be for reasons other than genuine concern. It's either political self-interest or personal self-interest, but not a genuine concern about the policies and practices being suggested.
I like the term "bromide" as you used it. The bromide you offered -- "Christians should be on the government's side on this issue" -- is baffling to me. So in your view, it is "Christian" for a government to take money by force from its constituents to pay for the health care of other constituents. It is a "Christian value" that governments are required (although at no time ever in the history of Earth or Christianity has it ever been the case) to provide health care for people. Most baffling, of course, is that we ought to provide an answer in this case that we are forbidden to provide in any other ... a religious one. While we are castigated for saying, "The Bible regards homosexual behavior as sin", we ought to say, "The Bible suggests we ought to force the government to pay for health care." (Please ... feel free to substitute "my religion" for "the Bible" in the phrases above.)
But, again, the question of this post isn't "Should we have health care reform?" It is "Why are we not allowed to debate it?"
The free market ALWAYS does a better job of providing goods and services than does a fat, lazy, ubnaccountable bureacracy.
EVERYONE in the U.S. has access to healthcare, in spite of the fact that not everyone has insurance. Not everyone wants insurance.
So to insure a small percentage of the U,S. , we will ruin a great healthcare system?
There is always room for improvement, but destroying and starting over is the hallmark of the Left and it never ends up to be what the dreamers envisioned. Often it turns out to be a horrible catasrophe.
http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506&sponsor
No thanks.
First, not so sure I even am a supporter of the current proposed legislation that seems too watered down to (a) funnel profits to insurance companies and (b) concessions to lobbyist rich Republicans and blue dog Democrats.
Second, we don't live an agrarian based nation — we're totally interconnected and interdependent that we do have a giant stake in the welfare of each other. No, there's no biblical mandate for us (which is the government, you know, "we the people") to provide health care, but for anyone that calls themselves "pro-life", I cannot see how you deny life to those in need.
The remark about "taking money by force" is so absurd — it is "we the people" and we all profit from the communal works in our technologically advanced society — every major advance has been a work of government — highways, food subsidies, invention of transistor, internet, etc.… — to take some things and term it "theft" (sorry, taxes are not "theft", but part of the social contract) is myopia beyond comprehension, and just inflammatory rhetoric designed not for "debate" but to shout down any discussion. We don't get a checklist of what we can agree to pay taxes for and what we refuse to. I certainly would not agree to fund illegal immoral wars, windfalls for munitions makers and generous stipends for private military contractors to surf porn all day in a luxury hotel suite.
And mince no words or shroud with euphemistic parlance — that's what it is when people don't get care because their insurance company dumps them or they don't make enough to buy their own plan or when they do have insurance, their illness/affliction + spiraling cost has them cut off.
Finally, debate is great and should be encouraged. But that's not what's happening with the majority of the opposition party base — instead it's ignorant yelling based on ridiculous assertions (i.e., death panels, "socialism" bogeyman — our health system now is "socialistic", where individual is at risk at corporate entities are guaranteed fat profits for a handful of oligopolistic firms, only <13% of plans are purchased free of any government involvement), racism (over half of Republicans believe President is not even American citizen, and that my friend, is centered either in (a) racism or (b) delusion), and just opposition to anything the opposition does.
Meanwhile, President Obama's approval rating has climbed to 63%.
Steve,
While I appreciate what you're saying there, you, like Naum, are arguing your position on health care reform. My post was about the problem that we're not allowed to do so -- that to do so is considered un-American and solely motivated by politics.
Naum,
Again you argue the merits of your idea that we need the government to provide health care for everyone. That's perfectly fine. Note, by the way, that I didn't call taxation "theft", despite your suggestion that I did. The Denmark health system is really quite remarkably good. The question is are we willing to pay 50% of our income as taxes to pay for this kind of system? Since your idea seems to be that taking taxes for the good of all is a good thing, I would have to guess that you would agree to such a thing. In other words, since taxation is not "taking money by force", what limitations would you put on it? If I could make the argument that taking ALL your income as taxation would eliminate poverty, health care issues, homelessness, class warfare, greed ... would you agree that this would be a good plan? (Not making an argument -- just asking about limits in your ideas.)
However, that is still not the point of the post. In the end you agree with the intent of my post -- that you believe that those outside of your viewpoint are arguing out of ignorance or self-interest.
And again we do this dance. I say, "Here is an issue" and you respond with "This is what I think about something somewhat related to what you said" and when I raise questions/concerns (like, in this case, "Why is it we're supposed to have a religious answer in this case but not in others?"), there is no response. (By the way, you asserted quite confidently that the president's approval ratings are quite high. I would need to question your source since all current indicators disagree.)
1. Government bureaucracy no greater than private industry bureaucracy. In fact, medicare overhead ~3%, private insurance 20-30% or greater. Ditto for social security vs. 401K plans. It seems we all get electricity (via state sanctioned monopoly), cable TV/internet (via monopoly/oligopoly), etc.… and the military was a lot more cost efficient before it went PMC route. And the numbers on health care don't bear out — look at statistics — infant mortality, life expectancy, etc.… — and on top, we pay 2X per capita for this (16% of GDP vs. 9-10% in other developed countries).
2. No, not all people are covered — you have pre-existing condition, you are denied care. Or you are deemed "high-risk", you are cut off, and while you must be treated in ER (which ends up being far costlier to us all!), tests and other preventive care are denied which would result in (a) life saving and (b) less total cost…
3. @Stan, don't see you point on cost, considering that our system today is the most costly of all developed nations, and appears to be most broken (at least for the "average" worker, if you are rich and have money to pay, it's a different story).
4. @Stan, no, the message isn't to "shutup" — it's rather, to debate the matter based on the facts and evidence, not on scurrilous charges. Or to shout over people, instead of giving everyone a turn at the microphone.
5. This poll says Obama has a 6 month approval of 63%.
Half are allowed to do so. There is no problem for liberals to dissent from the govt. But when conservatives dissent they are taken to task by those in government who believe that they are morally and intellectually superior to them.
Naum,
I do have to know ... what is "PMC" (in terms of military)?
Naum: "Stan, don't see you point on cost"
No, I guess not. You said (in essence), "Taxation isn't taking money by force. It's taking money for the good of the people." I simply wondered how much taxation was okay with you.
(By the way, admitting that our current system already leans toward socialism is not a good way to demonstrate that the "scurrilous charge" of "socialism" is a bogeyman rather than a real concern.)
On the approval rating stuff, I guess that just tells us that we can't know much from polls. According to this Aug 6 story, his approval rating is below 50%. This Aug 13 report puts it down to about 47%. The Atlantic says it is around 50.9%. And I just thought this story from the Washington Examiner gave an interesting demographic breakdown. (I noted that it says that he's at 63% ... among the unmarried, 18-29 year olds, and even higher among those making less than $2000 a year.)
PMC = Private Military Contractors
On Obama approval rating — well, he getting it from both ends — as many voted for a CHANGE from the failed economic policies of the past 8 years (and governing Republican economic philosophy of the past ~30 years), not for a mishmash of compromise with the same EPIC FAIL.
Interesting article on the American health care system versus existing universal health care systems.
@Stan, a partisan article from a right wing/libertarian lobbyist organ (not interested in the truth, just advancing their laissez-faire pro-wealthy, anti-worker amoral agenda) in conjunction with Washington Times (owned by self-proclaimed messiah Reverend Moon of the Unification Church that congressmen have bowed to…) that conveniently cherry picks data points and omits much of the story…
1. Better rates for some cancers, not all…
2. Again, for "some" cancers…
3. No conclusive evidence presented on whether or not those drugs are more effective…
4.,5. Have seen conflicting studies on this…
6. Key word is "elective" — in other systems, people with more life-critical needs are at the front of the line, unlike U.S. where money means more than need…
7.,8. It's a fallen world, lots wrong with those systems but Canadians would never give up their system for one like ours and to claim otherwise is pure ignorance…
9. How does that break down to care.
10. This one must concede, but ironically, it's due in large part to U.S. government expense — NIH, generous alliances with universities, etc.… — a great deal of the subsidy for cutting edge work (which then private entities reel in most of the financial gain) is on the taxpayer dime. But it is a point made — that those with money should be permitted to go outside the system for this innovation edge…
Some more counterpoints to that corporate propaganda:
* A 2008 report by the Commonwealth Fund found that the U.S. dropped from 15th in 2006 to last among 19 countries in 2008 on a measure of mortality that is amenable to medical care.
* A 2007 report ranked the U.S. 42nd in the world for life expectancy, lower than most of Europe and Japan.
* A 2006 study found that Americans in late middle age are less healthy than their counterparts in England for cancer and five other chronic diseases.
* A 2007 study found that Canada has at least the quality of care as in the U.S., often with better outcomes, despite spending little more than one-half what we spend on health care.
* An earlier study showed conclusively that poor women with cancer in Toronto have better outcomes than their counterparts in Detroit, even after accounting for race and standards of measuring poverty (for example, the Canadian women had survival rates more than 50 percent higher for lung, stomach and pancreatic cancer compared to American women in Detroit's poorest districts).
* The U.S. has a weaker primary care system than other developed countries; it has been found to rank 11th among 11 countries on eleven performance criteria; our primary care base is in crisis with less than 10 percent of medical graduates now opting for careers as primary care physicians; moreover, patients living in parts of our country with larger number of specialists (and greater use of technology) are more likely to have late-stage colorectal cancer when first diagnosed.
A Christian Creed on Health-Care Reform
As one of God’s children, I believe that protecting the health of each human being is a profoundly important personal and communal responsibility for people of faith.
I believe God created each person in the divine image to be spiritually and physically healthy. I feel the pain of sickness and disease in our broken world (Genesis 1:27, Romans 8:22).
I believe life and healing are core tenets of the Christian life. Christ’s ministry included physical healing, and we are called to participate in God’s new creation as instruments of healing and redemption (Matthew 4:23, Luke 9:1-6; Mark 7:32-35, Acts 10:38). Our nation should strive to ensure all people have access to life-giving treatments and care.
I believe, as taught by the Hebrew prophets and Jesus, that the measure of a society is seen in how it treats the most vulnerable. The current discussion about health-care reform is important for the United States to move toward a more just system of providing care to all people (Isaiah 1:16-17, Jeremiah 7:5-7, Matthew 25:31-45).
I believe that all people have a moral obligation to tell the truth. To serve the common good of our entire nation, all parties debating reform should tell the truth and refrain from distorting facts or using fear-based messaging (Leviticus 19:11; Ephesians 4:14-15, 25; Proverbs 6:16-19).
I believe that Christians should seek to bring health and well-being (shalom) to the society into which God has placed us, for a healthy society benefits all members (Jeremiah 29:7).
I believe in a time when all will live long and healthy lives, from infancy to old age (Isaiah 65:20), and “mourning and crying and pain will be no more” (Revelation 21:4). My heart breaks for my brothers and sisters who watch their loved ones suffer, or who suffer themselves, because they cannot afford a trip to the doctor. I stand with them in their suffering.
I believe health-care reform must rest on a foundation of values that affirm each and every life as a sacred gift from the Creator (Genesis 2:7).`
The Hoover Organization "a right wing/libertarian lobbyist organ (not interested in the truth, just advancing their laissez-faire pro-wealthy, anti-worker amoral agenda)? Fascinating. Never would have expected that out of Stanford University. Of course, I would expect that a liberal would always assume that anything contrary to their viewpoint is "right wing", "pro-wealthy", and "amoral" ... without actual proof. It's typically called ad hominem.
Look, Naum, try all you want to tell me that "the message isn't to 'shutup'", but there can be no other possible conclusion when every opinion other than yours is ignorant at best and evil at worst.
The easy answer, of course, would be to say that Sojourner's "Christian Creed for Health Reform" is a partisan call from a left wing/progressive lobbyist organization (not interested in the truth, just advancing their anti-Gospel, pro-socialist, amoral agenda) in conjunction with the rest of the oxymoronic "Progressive Christianity" group, but this doesn't actually say anything, does it? Which is my point.
@Stan, I am /scratching head at our comment that totally disregards that one organization cares not human beings while the other is motivated purely by the love of Christ and the will to carry out his will and the do the stuff he charged his followers with…
Naum, I will try to respond to what I think you said, but I may be wrong because the typos make it somewhat convoluted. Your argument is essentially this: "The organization that disagrees with my view is motivated purely by the love of Christ, while organizations that disagree with my position don't care about human beings." No proof. No evidence. No rationale.
Here, let me offer this. If an organization -- for example the Roman Catholic Church -- says, "We are solely motivated by the love of Christ" and then carries out attacks on Islam based on that motivation, will you say the same thing? In the same sense, if an organization makes the claim to be purely motivated by the love of Christ and will carry out His will and then disregards the biblical Gospel, the biblical message, the basic doctrines of Christianity ... I have a really hard time concluding "They are motivated by the love of Christ."
But ... we're already butting up against today's post, aren't we? How do we determine what Christianity says we should do? I would use the Bible. Others would question its integrity. We're on our own, then, right?
@Stan
Let me try to tackle this again: Hoover Institute is a partisan organization not interested in truth, not interested in advancing the Kingdom, not interested in the salvation of people or even their well being other than some general "ends justify the means" abstract sense where eventuality will justify their political philosophy (or at least fatten the coffers of their political patrons). Indeed, you won't ever find any fellow (think tank designation for one of their "associates" on the payroll) or board member there advancing the cause for social justice or any Christian or humanitarian cause — rather, it is akin to the role of a corporate lawyer, on retainer to fight for his/her client, no matter the truth.
In contrast to a "left wing/progressive" (to take your words, though many on the left would take issue with them being tagged as partners along side them, as they are perceived to be much more "centrist") Christian organization whose mission statement is entirely about advancing Kingdom causes. You might disagree with their assessment of the problem and their agreed stance on reform proposals, reasoning that (a) it wouldn't be effective, (b) even if it would deliver aid to those without, it still wouldn't be right, etc.…. I get your counterexample, but it's a non sequitur here.
Sure, doesn't necessarily mean one side is right, and one side is wrong — based purely upon motivation for interest or disinterest. But it certainly casts light on the debate, and not one versed in the art of rhetoric would dismiss such a factor…
The "left wing/progressive" crack was meant to be taken as inflammatory -- the same affect of your "right wing" remark. It serves no purpose because neither has any real meaning today except to the other side. (I, for instance, took a test on my views on government and economics and they rated me as "centrist". You would rate me "right wing". The "right wing" might rate me as "left wing".) See? No real meaning.
My point was that an organization that has no interest in advancing the Kingdom is no different than an organization that claims to be interested in advancing the Kingdom while acting against the Kingdom.
Too often people base their opinions on "this guy said he was a Christian so I'll listen to him" when he's not Christian at all. The claim is not enough, and too often misleading on its own.
Post a Comment