At a moment when we need to tone down the discourse in our politics, why have a purely symbolic debate over health care repeal in the U.S. House of Representatives? The debate may take us back to the worst days of the health care discussion, when swastikas were commonplace at anti-reform rallies, and some talk radio and TV turned into hate radio and TV. Will opponents talk about "death panels," or "killing grandma?" Will people carry signs that say "bury Obamacare with Kennedy" or wear t-shirts that say, "We came unarmed (this time)" when they rally outside the Capitol? Representative Chellie Pingree of Maine has already suggested that the Republicans retitle their bill, which is now named "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Act." According to Steven Pearlstein of the Washington Post the phrase "job-killing" is part of the official message of the repeal movement, as reflected in the dramatic and consistent increase in its use lately.
Catholics United, the organization I direct, saw firsthand just how the tenor of the health care debate led to political violence when we chose to stand by members of Congress who voted for reform. Two of these members, Tom Perriello (VA-5) and Steve Driehaus (OH-1), made national headlines when extreme rhetoric and violent actions were used against them. Following the health care vote, then-Minority Leader John Boehner called Driehaus "a dead man," and promised that "Catholics will run him out of town." The congressman was subsequently the target of death threats. Things were worse in Virginia, where Tea Party activists published Perriello's brother's home address on the web (they mistakenly thought the house belonged to Perriello himself). Someone showed up and cut the gas line.
Catholics United is obviously an interested party in this issue. We support the law and want repeal to fail. But supporters of health care reform are prepared to debate if necessary. After all, it will allow us to shine a light on that pain that repeal will inflict on America's families and businesses, and the fact that the new law will give families more control over their health care. A debate would allow supporters to point out that the Republicans do not have an alternative plan and to highlight the law's many benefits, like the ban on insurance companies denying care to people with pre-existing conditions and reduced prescription drug costs for seniors. It would give us the chance to talk about how the Republican repeal plan would force nearly 900,000 American families to go bankrupt because of medical bills. It would let us highlight recent data showing that health care reform has already resulted in a huge spike in the number of small business providing health insurance to their employees.
Most people agree that the vote would be purely symbolic because Senate opposition to repeal is solid and even if it weren't, President Obama's veto is certain. So what is the point of conducting this debate? To get headlines? To fulfill promises to the Republicans' hard-core base? I understand that this is the signature issue of the new Republican House majority, but the debate won't advance any new ideas because it's only about the "repeal" part of the Republican "repeal and replace" campaign. The "replace" part is being referred to various committees. But the debate may inspire another round of inflammatory rhetoric inside and outside the Capitol.
There's no easy answer to stopping hateful language from overtaking civility in our politics. What's needed isn't censorship, but self-restraint. Canceling a purely symbolic repeal vote that has little chance of enactment may be a good way to set an example.
Follow Chris Korzen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/chriskorzen
Clay Farris Naff: God Knows You Have the Right to Refuse Obamacare!
Heather Cox Richardson: Margaret Chase Smith and the Politics of Rhetoric
“Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.” — Martin Luther King Jr.
First up tomorrow, Congress votes on the GOP's bill, not to amend, or improve, but to completely repeal the Health Care Reform Bill.....
http://www.funeral-planning-guide.com/
So, with the screaming about the shooter in AZ, and his lack of care, perhaps R's will reconsider the staus quo. There are reasons and problems that HCR tries to address--but to hear the opposition--it is just a socialist ploy.
If you ran a company would you allow all of your employees to waste time creating a product when you knew that it could never be made and, if it was made, no one would buy it?
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To
There is now time to look at the contents of the law and its many effects on the U.S. Citizens.
More Coffee...
R/ PRONESE
The Canada story is not true. It's Canadians who come here for all those superior services their socialized system does not cover. And give me my country back!
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427
1) According to the right, we are exceptional. We are #1 at everything, including healthcare. We are perfect, and we don't need to improve anything.
2) The government is too inept to run anything. Never mind that they're already running programs that recipients would kill to preserve, like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the healthcare program provided to active military personnel and vets.
3) If they let Obama get credit for something this historic and if it were actually popular, they would stand zero chance of defeating him in 2012. It is critical that he not receive credit for this accomplishment.
You’ve got the oh-so dreaded Healthcare disease
Healthcare disease will kill all jobs it does touch
So trust us on this; we’re not asking very much
If we do not quickly repeal, all jobs will surely die
We tell you this expecting you will not ask us why
Of course saving jobs comes with certain tax cut fees
But there’s no charge for the jobs we shipped overseas
Tone down the rhetoric GOP...is this being 'civil"?
It's a bit Newt-ish.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1276
They're concerned about profits for their benefactors.
Because divide is what they do. Divide and Conquer.
Sure there are a number of poor working class whites who vote for them and an infinitely smaller number of wealthy Whites and corporate money types. This is their extent of the diversity pie in the US. Of the two groups the only interest they really serve is that of the infinitely smaller one. They routinely dupe the working class whites into thinking they are for them.
Given the true size of their constituency, one understands that they will never serve the Interest of our country. They tend to leave out 95- 98% when they are thinking about (The American People) us. This explains why we are where we are.
Why do I believe that the “public option” is the proper and ONLY workable solution to the enormous challenge of fixing a broke system? Its because I very strongly feel that the COSTS of the existing system are out of and may remain out of control. I now refer to both the administrative costs and the delivery of care costs.
I submit that the “option” would not be adverse to the private health care companies. It might trim their profits slightly but by no means an unreasonable amount. I expect that the health insurance premiums charged by the “option” plan would give due allowance for reasonable or modest marketing costs and a reasonable margin of profit just like the States of the USA permit a reasonable profit to their public utilities.
But the “option” does not even attempt in any way to regulate the price of private insurance premiums or medical fees, as such. Its simply that by providing REASONABLE and fair competition in the health field, the insurance companies and “providers” may have to mend their ways and to the enormous benefit of the public.
Recently, I was troubled to read that the Obama administration’s regulations drafters have found the drafting an extremely challenging task. That is no wonder as this bill, without the “option”, forces the regulation drafters to attack the core problem of the bloated costs of the current health care delivery system quite obliquely rather than head on. Even though I supported the Dem’s bill as finally passed, I feel quite pessimistic about its effectiveness irrespective of “repeal” or not.
Where the Dem’s failed in the recent debates is in not effectively convincing the public that the existing “delivery” system is indeed and in fact irreparably broken and will eventually bankrupt the Nation. The “option” is the only salvation!!