The Right is wrong
My 10 year old daughter came home from school last week, and while she sat with me eating her after-school snack asked me;
“Is President Obama a racist?” she said.
“No, honey, where’d you hear that?” I said.
“Well, [so and so] said that in class to me today and I just wanted to know,” she said.
“Did the person tell you where they had heard such a thing, honey?” I asked.
“Yeah, [their] grandpa said it,” my daughter replied. “He heard it on TV.”
My daughter and I had a discussion on what is racism, its source in ignorance, and how it’s just plain wrong. We also talked about the TV and radio shows which spread intolerance and bigotry for profit and political gain. My daughter’s eyes glazed over a little, and I said;
“Thanks for letting me know what’s up with you! Go play with your friends!”
Well, I never thought it could happen but, there is obviously no lowest depth of putrid vile chicanery that the far right wing racists will go to block anything that President Obama is up to keep his promise of change in America. Now they’re indoctrinating racism into 10 year old school children.
The current chief perpetrators are Glenn Beck and the Fox Network.
Since Beck’s comment, there has been an effort to have Beck’s sponsors stop advertising on his show but, that’s not far enough for what these folks have done.
The Fox Network condones Glenn Beck’s racist statements with every day that Glenn Beck spews his vitriol and the boycott should be directed at all Fox advertisers until this filth is gone.
But, Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh jump into the fire, also! The folks that spread the filth of racism do not deserve our economic support. I will not buy products advertised on the Fox Network, or any network or show which advertises or runs Michelle Malkin or Rush Limbaugh (not that Rush is a problem, I don’t have erectile dysfunction, premature balding or a need to evade personal liability by incorporating in Nevada!).
Meanwhile, a current attempt by President Obama to have a teaching moment with students is attacked as “indoctrination in Obama’s socialist agenda.”
Let’s make this clear, there have been other Presidential addresses directly to students. The Presidents which have done this before are Ronald Reagan in 1981, George H.W. Bush in 1991, and George W. Bush in 2002. Each presented their personal political views on America and the direction the country should go in their speeches.
There is only one reason to go off the deep end against an innocuous address by President Obama for children to “work hard, stay in school and succeed,” it is racism. It is the racism upon which the Republican Party in America has thrived since the 1880’s.
Some 10 per cent of the electorate is still fussing and fuming over the 2008 election; still believing President Obama is a Muslim; still believing President Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii or the United States; still believing that healthcare reform will have “death panels’ and will “pull the plug on grandma;” still calls President Obama a “Marxist Communist” or a “socialist” who “pals around with terrorists,” who wants to take away all your stuff; and, still believes that it’s wrong for a person who is black to be President of the United States.
What’s wrong here is the right.
Scarlet,
I know conservatives who work hard for minimum wage, but still believe that by allowing the richest of the rich to continually sequester more money will magically make things better for everyone. The health of the economy is directly dependent on the circulation of money, but concentrating the wealth impedes that circulation.
I support a family of four on a modest income, And yes, I paid my student loans back in full. In the respect of family and upbringing it sounds like you and I are not a lot different. My maternal grandmother is still living, and only one of my grandparents finished high school.
When I said you have been “seduced by the selfish agenda of the ultra wealthy.” I meant it. But I should elaborate.
Many people are of the belief that if they work hard, stay honest, and are optimistic, they will find success. Now that would work in a world where everyone practiced the but we don’t have an ethical business environment today. What we have is a system dominated by a minority who feel their wealth entitles them a special exception from the law.
The seduction of which I speak is the seduction of avarice. It is the reward not of prosperity, but the promise of a chance, however slim, of great wealth.
Obama explained his taxation proposal to “Joe the Plumber” It was not about redistributing the wealth, And for the record, socialism is the economic scenario where the government operates an industry as a monopoly.
If Obama continually consulted Wright on political affairs, I would be worried, But this idea of guilt by association is the of purest of crapola.
I don’t believe that Obama ever laid down a specific plan for health care reform. He did have several ideas concerning problems that needed addressing, so there is an analysis of what should be addressed. There have also been studies of different strategies from the various Medicaid waiver programs across the nation. Some of the programs were very successful until the health insurance lobbies got legislation passed to allow the health insurers to dump their less profitable chronic cases into the waiver programs. So the assertion that none of these exist is errant.
I am not aware of the details of Mr Obama’s position on most of the issues you listed, and I don’t presume to know what he thinks on these issues. I don’t read minds. It’s impolite and it can make you go crazy.
However, I can give you my opinions on some of these issues.
Tort reform.
The current tort system has many facets and affects much more than the health insurance industry. If you research the problems you will find that the vast majority of frivolous lawsuits are filed by corporations as part of the unlawful practice of “Litigation as a business strategy” whereby the legal system is leveraged to the corporate advantage. Defensive medicine, however is a way of offsetting the high cost of malpractice insurance and appeasing the interests of the insurance companies.
Medical debts are often the cause of personal bankruptcy. Most of the bankruptcies involving medical debts occur with people who have medical insurance coverage, but are denied coverage or worse have their coverage terminated by the insurance company after they develop a serious long term illness.
There are standards for advertising in place, but the FTC does not have the full authority to enforce these standards.
I agree that it would be good to encourage charitable contributions to assist payment of health care for the needy, Currently such charitable group do exist, but the use of income tax deductions as a way to do this has created “charitable” foundations which funnel of 80 to 90 percent of the charitable donation to PACs and lobbyist organizations.
Illegal aliens are not the problem behind the health care crisis. I spent about 2 hours the other day explaining this to someone who seemed to think that legal immigrants could easily opt for naturalization. There are many legal aliens and immigrants in this country who pay taxes and health insurance, but do not have the full benefits of citizenship.
Affordable high risk health insurance pool. That’s an oxymoron. This idea is simply allowing the private insurers to dump the more expensive cases so the taxpayer subsidize the earnings of the insurance companies.
The advertising of prescription medication to the public should be stopped. It encourages doctor shopping and fraud.But we should also reform the patent laws that are that are encouraging the pharmaceutical companies to push unsafe drugs on the unsuspecting public. You may not know it but cox-2 inhibitors such as vioxx were originally approved as a treatment for a vary rare cancer in considerably lower dosage than what is effective for pain relief. The approval used a streamlined approval process intended to speed the approval of treatments for life threatening diseases and requires less stringent testing. Once approved for one medical use, it is then easier to get doctors to prescribe the medicine for off-label use in higher doses.
You should also be aware that most insurance does not pay for drugs like Viagra.
One way to enhance competition would be to have a safety net insurance company, chartered by the federal government but funded by premiums paid by the insured and operated as a not for profit business. The is the same way many public utilities are paid for throughout the country. Another way would be to allow people to buy their insurance across state lines. Part of the problem is that there is too much fat and pork in the insurance companies which in many cases hold regional monopolies.
Qui tam already applies under the False Claims Act.
Encouraging the preparation of living will is the exact same thing that the right-wing media pundits are calling “Death Panels”.
I want to add an additional idea:
encourage the licensing of Mutual healthcare insurance.
Mark–My laundry list of health care solutions was prefaced by “What is Obama’s position on. . .”. I’m frustrated by his lack of concrete proposals. I threw out some ideas that could cut costs. I simply wonder what Obama has considered in lieu of the public option.
1) Don’t I like the arts? Art is in the eye of the beholder. Flopping around on a canvas while naked and covered in tempura paint isn’t art. If the refrigerator is empty, I wouldn’t be rushing out to buy my kids a box of 96 Crayola crayons. We could all just enjoy the art we already have for awhile. Seems like a logical place to trim fat.
2) Cutting drug advertising: We live in a nanny state already. You can enjoy your freedom so long as you are buckled up and your kids are ensconced in fiberglass carriers. Banning drug advertising seems like something most folks would just take in stride. Anyone who wants to know what drugs are available can just go on the internet or the public library. It doesn’t need to be piped over the airways. You can’t advertise cigarettes on TV anymore–I see this as an analagous ban.
3) More competition: The more I read about the insurance issue, it seems like part of the problem is that state laws limit the number of companies who can come in and compete. I’m not sure we can blame bad corporate actors instead of bad regulatory policy.
4) As for WPA programs in health care: The health care industry offers opportunities for those with a wide range of job skills. Given the choice between collecting public assistance while also working as a nurse’s assistant emptying bed pans, many people would just go find other work. Others would work as a nurse’s assistant and would discover that they had the interest and aptitude to learn how to be a technical assistant or a nurse. There are plenty of clerical opportunities in claims processing and other jobs in housekeeping, the cafeteria, and patient services. Drawing blood takes training, but it is a job many can learn to do. Many hospitals could use light duty candy stripers–just folks to help the patient when the patient pushes the buzzer. Those who can’t lift patients can bathe them or assist them in their daily living activities. These needs are particularly great in nursing homes that service Medicaid residents. Nursing homes need workers to hand feed patients, to wash and cut their hair, and to trim their nails. Many workers who don’t have complex skill sets are neverthless experienced in caring for the very young or the very old.
Not familiar with challenges to the old FDR WPA plans. Will read up on that.
5) I’m against the public option because it is outside the scope of federal authority. Also, federal programs are already hemmoraging money. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme facing emminent collapse. SSI is an abuse ridden debacle. Medicare and Medicaid are broke and subject to plundering.
And now for the really bad news. . . The scariest aspect of the health care debate is that we aren’t even talking about long term care. That costs upward of $50,000 per year per citizen. The bottom line is that Americans need to be socking away a whole bunch of money and they need to be purchasing a whole bunch of insurance, not only health insurance but also long term care insurance. We should all plan on working up until the time of senility or death. Retirement isn’t affordable or socially responsible any longer.
Responsible citizens merely endeavoring to care for themselves and their families are increasingly resentful that the government wants even more of their money when the government already squanders what it takes.
Scarlett Letter: I am sympathetic to several of your points (but not all of them). More than anything else, I want to see it clearly demonstrated A) what KIND of health care would be included (and not included) in the package, and B) What it would cost, really and truly. Instead of hearing clearly described facts, we’ve heard a couple dozen worthy ideas (e.g., portability–See here for a list published by the White House) combined with lots of arm waving. The whole thing is snarled up in personality disputes and lies. As I see it, I see too many obfuscations coming from the left and lots of vicious lies coming from the right. And the entire discussion is corrupted through and through by money.
In the White House proposal, I see that there won’t be any “rationing” of health care. This makes me suspicious, because in my mind there MUST be rationing one way or the other, unless we were to live in a world where doctor services and medical supplies were free. You point about nursing home care is a good one, in my eyes. Such care is mind-boggling bankruptingly ghastly. How would we afford it in the real world? For “everyone”? I don’t believe it.
I sometimes fantasize that I lived in a place where the citizens and their representatives could have an intelligent discussion about the national proposal. But no, we don’t even discuss a highly charged issue of whether illegal aliens are covered under the bill until a boorish man shouts “You lie!” at the President.
I think that we’re afraid to have an intelligent discussion where people say what they mean and they get to the point. Every time I see a 1,000 page bill I am certain that it could have been shorter but that it was made long and complicated to obfuscate and to allow those with power and money to game the system. I’m suspicious of both the vagueness and the sheer complexity of the proposals.
As frustrated as I am with the left, the calloused attitudes of many on the right disgust me. What are we going to do about poor people who are sick? I’ve heard far too many version of “screw them” from people advocating “small government,” even though they sat their silently when we blew through trillions of dollars for the Iraq adventure and the economic “bailout.”
Here’s what annoys me the most: The public conversation is nothing like the private conversations of the big players who will really be pulling the strings. Imaging listening in on private conversations involving A) groups of Senators or B) Groups of insurance executives or C) groups of drug company executives. If you tape recorded their private conversations and published them in a big newspaper, my conviction is that they would be horrified because it wouldn’t comport with the public positions being taken.
One good rule of thumb is to follow the money. But I suspect that the system is being intentionally designed to make it difficult to follow the money.
Let’s keep in mind that constitutional scholar Barack Obama keeps in mind that the president does not make laws. That is not his job. He may suggest guidelines for the lawmakers to pursue, but his role is to coordinate and enforce. He is the executive, not the lawmaker. He does have the power to veto a law that he considers unenforceable. That has given presidents much latitude over the last century.
Unlike his predecessor, Obama knows that the stability of our government depends on the executive leaving the creation of laws to the lawmakers in congress.
Tell your Senators and representatives what you do and don’t want to see in the bill. It is a distraction to protest to the president about this issue.
I disagree, Dan. Obama is leading the charge on “health care reform.” It’s time to provide more details for his preferred plan instead of repeatedly pointing only to low-hanging fruit (e.g., portability).
Erich,
I know you’re impatient, but it has become abundantly clear that we (you and I) will not get what we want. To do reform right will require a complete overhaul of a system most people seem unwilling to engage in revolution to fix. I think he knows that. If he goes all out now with he own plan, whatever it is, in the current climate he will be shot to pieces and might end up being a one-term president. Cynical, I know, but that’s how I see what he’s doing.
Mark : While I haven’t COMPLETELY given up yet, I am sincerely worried. If this does not go through my faith in the system will be severely hurt.
Sometimes you wonder how much power the megacorps of this country can wield, we are finding out right now.
I guess I’m more even cynical yet. I never believed the big money interests would let true reform happen.
A constant chorus from those opposed to national health care is; “I don’t want government healthcare, leave my Medicare alone!”
Why would anyone think that Medicare is anything other than a government run healthcare program? Because the far right has somehow posited it as such.
So, let’s look at the facts:
The Republicans opposed Social Security in the 1930s, calling it “Communism” and “Socialism.”
The Republicans opposed Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s, calling it “Communism” and “Socialism.”
The Republicans oppose a public option in 2009, calling it “Communism” and “Socialism.”
Strike three! Yer out!
It is interesting also to note that people have been successfully sued for libel, defamation or slander when someone else called them a “Communist.” Perhaps some might turn down the rhetoric, or face the consequences.
As for Social Security and Medicare, if we eliminate the income ceilings on the rich for paying taxes to support Social Security and Medicare, problem solved!
Mark: I confess. I am impatient. I can understand not getting the job done, but I’m really impatient that we can’t even have an honest conversation about what needs to get done.
To gauge how easy it would be to enact real reform, consider this scenario: the best way to demonstrate our disaffection with the current system would be for everyone—EVERYONE—to drop their health care. Just cancel their policies and refuse to play.
Now if you can actually imagine that happening, then you can see a way toward this thing working.
Jay, consider: there are people right now saying “If this thing passes, my faith in the system will be severely damaged.”
Remember this, is is much more difficult and time consuming to build than to demolish.
The previous administration focused much enery on ripping away decades of regulations that protected the corporations from the rotten fruits of their own short-sightedness.
Like vicious dogs that have slipped their collars, these corporations do not want to be restricted again, will do anything to maintain their current status. They are dangerous. I now fear that the the lies and rhetoric promoted by the corporations and there shill pundits are moving us closed to open conflict in the form of a civil war.
Mr Obama is working very hard within the current system to restore some sanity to government policy. HE may put forth his ideas to the legislature and the public, but without the support in the legislature, such plans are worthless.
The strategy of the health care industry has been a form of info terrorism, scaring the people into a revolution against the duly elected government.
The background noise of lies and accusations being broadcast as gospel truth is an aggression by the corporations against the consumers, a war that may well destroy our democracy.
Yet even well educated people are falling into lockstep with the message of the corporations, blaming Obama for the indecisiveness of the lawmakers.