It's not about healthcare

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html

Within the piece is a link to this, which I post for your amusement while you read:

I've long held that resistance to health care reform is grounded in a sick superstition that says that rocking the boat is the surest way to jinx us and make us sick--or more exactly, to force us to face the fact that we WILL all become sick at some point, and we WILL all die. I felt that for many, health insurance is some kind of talisman against illness, much as children's life insurance marketed to parents of babies is advertised as a way to "protect" their children.

I am naive about racism, despite living in a highly segregated metropolitan area with parallel white and black party machines, and I underestimated American racism, especially after Obama's election.

I'm also saddened to see how quickly Obama has aged since the footage used in that video. The fastest way to age a man is to stick him in the White House.

 

[malvachat]

I can't begin to understand the resistance in the states to the health care thing.
We in Britain have our National Health which despite some faults is the greatest thing we have.You never have to worry about getting sick and not affording to pay.
It's not perfect and we all pay a high price though our taxes and national insurance.
But given a choice people in Britain would vote near on 100% for it.
If people want private insurance they can have that as well.They can have their one to one service and jump queues(lines)if they want.But they can't opt of the National Health service and few would want to.

 

[Worm]

I've long held that resistance to health care reform is grounded in a sick superstition that says that rocking the boat is the surest way to jinx us and make us sick--or more exactly, to force us to face the fact that we WILL all become sick at some point, and we WILL all die. I felt that for many, health insurance is some kind of talisman against illness, much as children's life insurance marketed to parents of babies is advertised as a way to "protect" their children.

I am naive about racism, despite living in a highly segregated metropolitan area with parallel white and black party machines, and I underestimated American racism, especially after Obama's election.

The two explanations aren't mutually exclusive. It's a mixture of those two and probably a few more reasons besides.

However, the issue takes a further twist when you consider that Obama, like his predecessors, serves the interests of the most powerful white men in the world. They are only too happy to have him as a lieutenant. Delighted, in fact. So despite the toxic fumes rising from below, racism doesn't actually play much of a role at the top. The Tea Party crazies and the Republican obstructionists are a side-show.

 

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

The two explanations aren't mutually exclusive. It's a mixture of those two and probably a few more reasons besides.

However, the issue takes a further twist when you consider that Obama, like his predecessors, serves the interests of the most powerful white men in the world. They are only too happy to have him as a lieutenant. Delighted, in fact. So despite the toxic fumes rising from below, racism doesn't actually play much of a role at the top. The Tea Party crazies and the Republican obstructionists are a side-show.

It's not a side show when they're making death threats and throwing bricks through windows. But does that level of resistance show that this is, indeed, as much a core issue of human rights as the civil rights movement was?

And yes, the way they got the bill passed was by putting more money in insurance companies' pockets. I consider the whole thing to be Phase One. It will be too expensive, as passed, and will have to be reformed again.

 

[Worm]

It's not a side show when they're making death threats and throwing bricks through windows. But does that level of resistance show that this is, indeed, as much a core issue of human rights as the civil rights movement was?

And yes, the way they got the bill passed was by putting more money in insurance companies' pockets. I consider the whole thing to be Phase One. It will be too expensive, as passed, and will have to be reformed again.

It is a side-show at the level of power we're talking about. The lives of a few people at the bottom are a paltry "sticks-and-stones" consideration. The Democrats basically passed a Republican bill-- Senator Clyburn (D-SC) actually boasted that the bill was almost identical to Bob Dole's 1994 counter-proposal to Clinton's bill-- and they're getting praised to the skies by many. It is a victory for the status quo, at the end of the day. The private companies are richer and more entrenched, and over thirty million will now have insurance, along with other gains. Both sides appear to have won-- and that should tell you something.

The bill is weak now, may never improve, and more crucially we have lost something important in our politics when a "major victory" is won by ignoring the best all-around solution (single-payer).

Is it as important as civil rights? Yes. And the "victory", as compared to that of the Civil Rights movement, is also telling. Imagine bragging about integrating schools four years from now, or establishing "Phase One" of ridding the country of Jim Crow laws.

 

[Dave]

I guess when the US President retroactively exempts the previous administration from being investigated for their policies of torture on people that haven't even been charged with a crime, and then claims Sovereign Immunity for his office, so that as he continues the same policies, it no longer even is a crime, it must be racist to see some problem with this.

I was against the same policies when Bush was torturing people and sending them to secret prisons. It's still happening, and the man that was selling HOPE that it would CHANGE has actually claimed powers that Bush and his gang didn't have the nerve to dream of.

It is racist to blame the lack of support for Obama on his mixed race. Yes, he has some racist detractors, but the viewpoint that this is problem, and that enlightened people will support Obama is ridiculous.

 

[Emotional Guide Dog]

It's not about healthcare, it's about the economy stupid!

(10 points for knowing who had 'it's the economy stupid' as a mantra)

 

[Worm]

It's not about healthcare, it's about the economy stupid!

(10 points for knowing who had 'it's the economy stupid' as a mantra)

James Carville, wasn't it?

 

[Emotional Guide Dog]

James Carville, wasn't it?

Correct!

Although I had to look it up. I knew it was during the Clinton campaign but not who coined it.

 

[kissmyshadestoo]

Boehner should spend less time working on his tan.

I like the fact that EVERYONE has coverage......what worries me is WHERE are we getting the money to pay for this?

 

[Worm]

Boehner should spend less time working on his tan.

I like the fact that EVERYONE has coverage......what worries me is WHERE are we getting the money to pay for this?

It isn't everyone. Between 15 and 23 million Americans will not be covered by 2019.

The bill is paid for, mainly, by taxing the rich and slightly cutting Medicare and Medicaid.

There is money for it. Savings for the bill kick in later in the decade and continue into the second decade. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office the bill costs an estimated $938 billion which will reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over the next ten years.

To put the cost in perspective, let's divide $938 billion by ten to figure out a yearly cost. We'll say it's $93.8 billion a year on health care, rounding it nicely for the sake of argument.

President Obama-- that is, Nobel Peace Prize Winner Barack Obama-- has proposed a 2011 federal budget of $3.69 trillion. The entire cost of the ten-year health care plan from 2011-2021 would thus be a little over 25% of the single-year budget of the United States in 2011-- and if the numbers are to be believed would directly prevent the deaths of a little under half a million Americans.

Furthermore, the President intends to allocate $738 billion in national defense-- which is a low number, as the Pentagon finds other ways of sneaking in defense appropriations-- which would be, per year, almost eight times the amount spent on providing more health care to Americans.

The ten-year cost of health care reform would be about the same as the cost-- only to date-- of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Incidentally, single payer (or "Medicare For All") would have covered everybody and cost the government even less.

 

[Worm]

P. S. Preggers, I thought you might like this clear-sighted little gem from 1964: "Whether you are a Christian or a Muslim or a Nationalist, we all have the same problem. They don't hang you because you're a Baptist, they hang you 'cause you're black. They don't attack me because I'm a Muslim, they attack me 'cause I'm black. They attack all of us for the same reason". Whaddya think? Was Malcolm X on to something?

 

[Dave]

people wanna know how come
I got a gat and I'm staring out the window like Malcolm
ready to bring that noise
kinda trigger happy like the GETO Boys

 

[kissmyshadestoo]

It isn't everyone. Between 15 and 23 million Americans will not be covered by 2019.

The bill is paid for, mainly, by taxing the rich and slightly cutting Medicare and Medicaid.

There is money for it. Savings for the bill kick in later in the decade and continue into the second decade. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office the bill costs an estimated $938 billion which will reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over the next ten years.

To put the cost in perspective, let's divide $938 billion by ten to figure out a yearly cost. We'll say it's $93.8 billion a year on health care, rounding it nicely for the sake of argument.

President Obama-- that is, Nobel Peace Prize Winner Barack Obama-- has proposed a 2011 federal budget of $3.69 trillion. The entire cost of the ten-year health care plan from 2011-2021 would thus be a little over 25% of the single-year budget of the United States in 2011-- and if the numbers are to be believed would directly prevent the deaths of a little under half a million Americans.

Furthermore, the President intends to allocate $738 billion in national defense-- which is a low number, as the Pentagon finds other ways of sneaking in defense appropriations-- which would be, per year, almost eight times the amount spent on providing more health care to Americans.

The ten-year cost of health care reform would be about the same as the cost-- only to date-- of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Incidentally, single payer (or "Medicare For All") would have covered everybody and cost the government even less.

Fair enough Worm.....when I said "everyone" I meant "millions more". I still ain't buying the paying for it aspect of this......something has to give somewhere. Sounds like we pay now but see this "reduction" in future years.

 

[Anaesthesine]

That's right, it's not all about healthcare.

Setting aside arguments about the merits of the bill - the more extreme elements of this fight, with all the accompanying apocalyptic rhetoric, violence and threats of secession is about race. Not simply the fact that Obama is black, but the fact that he is both powerful and an effective leader. He just won "Waterloo" after all.

This is about the end of white supremacy, and the assumption that white makes right. This is what the end of Privilege looks like; this is how a worldview crumbles.

My mind goes back to a quote from the very beginning of Obama's tenure, when an acquaintance repeated words heard over a dinner table: the Democrats were going to fail, because they were being led by a "n***er and a c**t."

There are certainly justifiable fiscal arguments to be made against some of the provisions in this healthcare bill. There are very good arguments to be made that it does not go far enough; but there can be no argument that passage of this bill represents real, positive change. It is a deeply flawed moral victory, and if it can be advanced to universal coverage, it will also provide the groundwork for truly effective fiscal change as well.

Reasoned opposition to this administration's agenda has some validity, but this kind of hysterical, apocalyptic, violent, hate-filled rhetoric is indicative of something that goes beyond the passage of fairly moderate healthcare legislation. This isn't all about racism, but it is about a grave threat to a profoundly racist ideology.

 

[bored]

I can't begin to understand the resistance in the states to the health care thing.
We in Britain have our National Health which despite some faults is the greatest thing we have.You never have to worry about getting sick and not affording to pay.
It's not perfect and we all pay a high price though our taxes and national insurance.
But given a choice people in Britain would vote near on 100% for it.
If people want private insurance they can have that as well.They can have their one to one service and jump queues(lines)if they want.But they can't opt of the National Health service and few would want to.

Our new health care law is nothing like that.

This new law does things in a really different way. They are trying to have government funded care into the free market and you are forced to purchase it or pay extra taxes.

If you are a company you might be able to do some math and find out that dropping all your employees from health insurance is actually cheaper than offering it.

There are a lot of people who feel that constitutionally it is wrong to force someone to make a purchase. There are a lot of people that feel that the single payer system that you have is socialism and that this system is the lite version of that and these things are further erosion of our rights as citizens as the government controls more and more of our lives. This is something that is hard for people because everyone hates change.

I think there are a lot of lies and hyperbole about things like "death panels" where the government is going to decide who gets treatment and lives or gets denied treatment and dies. This propaganda came from those who opposed the bill and it was spread as a fear tactic to get people to be against the bill.

I favour a single payer system because I pay tax for it and I get to participate. This law however costs a lot of money and will in time be paid for with my tax dollars but my current health insurance situation leaves me with no need for it.

A lot of this also has to do with politics. Many Americans are polarized by being either a "Republican" or a "Democrat" and the 2 parties are really at a point where they like to just oppose each other for the purpose of being combative and contradictory. The Republican party however is supposed to be the party of smaller government and this type of law does go against what their party tends to believe. The government grew substantially under George W. Bush and spending was way out of control. They sometimes acknowledge this but blame it on 9/11 and the need to have a bigger military rather than actually trying to do something about it.

This law is actually really good for the insurance companies and the medical industry. Wall street saw medical stocks jump as the bill got passed and became a law. That is a pretty good indicator of where the investors think the 1 Trillion dollars is going to end up.

The law does have a couple good things in it such as making policies more competitive by allowing insurers to sell in any part of the country instead of in their specific territories, no exclusions for coverage based on pre-existing conditions and no lifetime caps on how much money your health care costs.

These are just some of the big issues that surround what was a bill for a long time and is now a law. Hopefully this helps.

 

[bored]

It isn't everyone. Between 15 and 23 million Americans will not be covered by 2019.

The bill is paid for, mainly, by taxing the rich and slightly cutting Medicare and Medicaid.

There is money for it. Savings for the bill kick in later in the decade and continue into the second decade. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office the bill costs an estimated $938 billion which will reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over the next ten years.

To put the cost in perspective, let's divide $938 billion by ten to figure out a yearly cost. We'll say it's $93.8 billion a year on health care, rounding it nicely for the sake of argument.

This is what they are projecting but this is based on them speculating who will need coverage and that everyone will respond to the laws appropriately.

Massachusetts has pretty much this very same law already and it has cost the state so much money that it was going bankrupt. The problem was so many people they didn't expect to sign up for the state paid insurance did. Suddenly this under-priced policy was being oversold creating huge deficits.

The state had a great idea. Make a new law. If your company hires independent contractors you must give them health benefits. In turn, employers sent jobs to other states.

Now this could happen with companies here sending jobs to other countries, something that is already happening.

I think the model used to come up with the numbers was based on a bunch of assumptions that will never materialize in reality and this bill is going to cost a ton of money.

Just one guy's opinion.

 

[Worm]

Our new health care law is nothing like that.

This new law does things in a really different way. They are trying to have government funded care into the free market and you are forced to purchase it or pay extra taxes.

If you are a company you might be able to do some math and find out that dropping all your employees from health insurance is actually cheaper than offering it.

There are a lot of people who feel that constitutionally it is wrong to force someone to make a purchase. There are a lot of people that feel that the single payer system that you have is socialism and that this system is the lite version of that and these things are further erosion of our rights as citizens as the government controls more and more of our lives. This is something that is hard for people because everyone hates change.

I think there are a lot of lies and hyperbole about things like "death panels" where the government is going to decide who gets treatment and lives or gets denied treatment and dies. This propaganda came from those who opposed the bill and it was spread as a fear tactic to get people to be against the bill.

I favour a single payer system because I pay tax for it and I get to participate. This law however costs a lot of money and will in time be paid for with my tax dollars but my current health insurance situation leaves me with no need for it.

A lot of this also has to do with politics. Many Americans are polarized by being either a "Republican" or a "Democrat" and the 2 parties are really at a point where they like to just oppose each other for the purpose of being combative and contradictory. The Republican party however is supposed to be the party of smaller government and this type of law does go against what their party tends to believe. The government grew substantially under George W. Bush and spending was way out of control. They sometimes acknowledge this but blame it on 9/11 and the need to have a bigger military rather than actually trying to do something about it.

This law is actually really good for the insurance companies and the medical industry. Wall street saw medical stocks jump as the bill got passed and became a law. That is a pretty good indicator of where the investors think the 1 Trillion dollars is going to end up.

The law does have a couple good things in it such as making policies more competitive by allowing insurers to sell in any part of the country instead of in their specific territories, no exclusions for coverage based on pre-existing conditions and no lifetime caps on how much money your health care costs.

These are just some of the big issues that surround what was a bill for a long time and is now a law. Hopefully this helps.

Good post.

Just a clarification, though, on Democrats fighting Republicans. Unquestionably there's a lot of insane fighting going on. But as Representative Clyburn (D-SC) pointed out, boastfully, the bill is more or less exactly the same as the bill Bob Dole put forward in 1994 as an alternative to the Clinton proposal. Not only that, Ben Stein wrote an editorial for AOL the other day saying that the new bill was similar to the same proposal made by Richard Nixon-- in fact, Stein asserted, Nixon's plan involved even more government control (Stein was a Nixon speechwriter at the time), making Obama's plan less "socialist" than Nixon's. Even David Frum said he thought Republicans should have gotten on board to shape the legislation, because it was already in a palatable form.

Essentially the Democrats' "big triumph" is a steaming pile of donkey shit that Republicans would have wanted had they not been obsessed with taking down President Obama (for reasons enumerated above). The "vast difference" between Republicans and Democrats is a joke. They serve the same masters.

 

[bored]

Good post.

Just a clarification, though, on Democrats fighting Republicans. But as Representative Clyburn (D-SC) pointed out, boastfully, the bill is more or less exactly the same as the bill Bob Dole put forward in 1994 as an alternative to the Clinton proposal. Not only that, Ben Stein wrote an editorial for AOL the other day saying that the new bill was similar to the same proposal made by Richard Nixon-- in fact, Stein asserted, Nixon's plan involved even more government control (Stein was a Nixon speechwriter at the time), making Obama's plan less "socialist" than Nixon's. Even David Frum said he thought Republicans should have gotten on board to shape the legislation, because it was already in a palatable form.

Yeah, I heard the part about Dole. The other stuff is new to me. The people in office don't care about the facts. This is all about winning a pissing contest. These people would find a way to argue the sun rising in the east if given the chance.

 

[Worm]

This is what they are projecting but this is based on them speculating who will need coverage and that everyone will respond to the laws appropriately.

Massachusetts has pretty much this very same law already and it has cost the state so much money that it was going bankrupt. The problem was so many people they didn't expect to sign up for the state paid insurance did. Suddenly this under-priced policy was being oversold creating huge deficits.

The state had a great idea. Make a new law. If your company hires independent contractors you must give them health benefits. In turn, employers sent jobs to other states.

Now this could happen with companies here sending jobs to other countries, something that is already happening.

I think the model used to come up with the numbers was based on a bunch of assumptions that will never materialize in reality and this bill is going to cost a ton of money.

Just one guy's opinion.

I've been skeptical from the beginning about the CBO projections.

However, they're the best we've got. It is better to believe a flawed projection, acknowledging its flaws, than it is to fall prey to "a gut feeling" that costs will rise. Now, obviously you've got more than a gut feeling, living in a state that has implemented a system similar to the new federal bill. As Anaesthesine said, reasoned opposition to the bill has never been questioned. So you may be right and we do respect your opinion. But I still feel, in the larger picture, that it is better to fight the idiotic GOP propaganda machine and get people to understand that (a) the bill, as it is on paper, vetted by a respected organization (the CBO), is not a grotesque socialist spending spree and (b) even if the costs for the bill go over than the projections it is still less than we are spending to torture, imprison, and kill people around the world.