Have You No Decency, Sir? At Long Last, Have You No Sense of Decency?

I'm pretty invested in this health care bill battle. First, twenty-four years ago, when I was 24 years old, I was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia. My medical treatments lasted over four years, cost close to half a million dollars, and were largely paid for by insurance coverage from my two acting unions, Actors Equity Association and Screen Actors Guild. Still, my family was forced to empty my bank account to meet official poverty levels (there wasn't very much to spend, at the time) in order to qualify for Social Security disability payments, and my years of illness nearly bankrupted my parents -- in spite of all the insurance coverage and assistance. I can tell you firsthand: even the most privileged among us are within a millimeter of losing everything to an unexpected illness. I was lucky enough to escape the clutches of what was then considered to be an incurable disease. I had my life. But I was left with nothing else. So, I'm puzzled, and amazed, and dismayed, by those who want health care reform legislation to be anything other than the most comprehensive and powerful it can possibly be.

Then there's my new family. My wife is from Italy. She, her parents, her grandparents, all her relatives, and all their friends have received prompt, capable, and comprehensive health care
their entire lives, and it hasn't cost them a thing. They've had their teeth cleaned regularly, their cavities filled, gum tissue transplants, fused spinal discs, abdominal surgeries, you name it. They didn't wait any longer than anyone would here. Nothing was rationed or withheld. They were, and are, every age, from zero to 94. Their government makes sure that its citizens can visit the doctor, have surgeries, and take care of their health, period. It's a right of existence, and -- to judge by my wife's circle -- it's working well (and Italy ain't exactly known for things working well). For that matter, my wife also attended the high school of her choice free of charge, and a world renowned Italian University for $200 per year. Why wouldn't Americans want the same? If they do want it, why are these things being kept from them? Maybe a more pertinent question today is, why are they being encouraged and instructed to fear this kind of progress on the part of their government, which every other advanced nation's government in the world has already long embraced?

Last night's eruption during President Obama's speech was a good example of that last tendency. It reminded me of the famous quotation from Joseph Welch, spoken to Senator Joseph McCarthy, who'd already spent years ruining careers and lives with less than sincere (and far less than accurate) accusations of anti-Americanism.

Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?, is what Mr. Welch said in 1954. And it precipitated the downfall of a legendary bully (who is now largely regarded as a blowhard).

It would have been interesting if President Obama had responded to Republican Congressman Joseph Wilson's outburst of "You lie!" with those same iconic words. First, it would have been interesting to see whether the Congressman, or others, might have responded; whether the president would have responded once again; and whether this would have resulted in spirited and unscripted debate, thus giving us all a glimpse of what an American version of British Parliament might look like.

But our House of Representatives isn't British Parliament. There have been plenty of times I've wished it was. It would be great to have a forum where questions and criticisms could be shouted out at our elected leaders, thereby compelling them to respond. But we don't have that forum. And, since we don't, Joseph Wilson should have followed some simple rules. You do not shout "You lie!" at the president while he's addressing Congress, and the nation. More crucially, you don't shout "You lie!" at the president when he's stating the irrefutable fact that his health care proposals do not offer coverage to illegal residents of the United States.

Since facts, such as the one I just mentioned, don't seem to hold as much influence as facts used to, let me quote from the health care proposal being prepared for submission to congress:

H.R. 3200: Sec 246 NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

I do not know what makes the language of Sec. 246 so hard to understand, or accept. Since it's right there, visible for anyone to read, I have to suspect that Joseph Wilson either doesn't know it's there, or doesn't care. That he, and the many (many, many) others who are furious about aspects of the proposed health care legislation, simply want to use any emotion, misinformation, slander, or lie to prevent its passage. That's a shame, because a) there are plenty of areas in which to find legitimate fault in the bill, as with many bills, and b) because giving health care insurance to the most people possible is a very good thing to do. That's why every other advanced nation on planet Earth does it -- and most of them have far greater health than we enjoy, and spend much less on keeping it that way.

So why are so many still vehemently opposed? To me, all the arguments against fall apart when inspected with any sense of logic. There's the slander, intimated last night, that the bill covers illegal immigrants. It doesn't. I sometimes wonder whether this misguided argument stems from the fact that the bill would presumably cover the offspring of illegal immigrants, should they be born on United States soil. But those new human beings, if born in the United States, are United States citizens. That's the law. If the complaint is with that law, then the bill's opponents should confront that issue, not the health care bill. (Of course, that would require altering the Constitution of the United States, which grants citizenship rights to anyone born here. The same constitution that conservatives consider perfect, and worthy of protection from "revisionist" judges. I guess that's an inconsistency they still need to work out.)

For the life of me, and not for lack of effort, I can't wrap my mind around the logic of those against aggressive reform -- including a "public option." I posted some thoughts on Facebook late last night and got response after response from people wishing a bill would bring "liability/tort reform," "oversight," or "create incentives," and "level the playing field," all followed by the demand that this not include "big government involvement." I'm sorry, but that doesn't track. All those things require government involvement. At least some opponents seem to want government to provide, without being "involved."

To take it a step further, all those expressed cravings above would be best accomplished by the government offering an optional, only-if-you-want-it, government sponsored insurance option. That's the way to keep insurance companies honest! By offering a competent, comprehensive, affordable, and compassionate alternative they will be forced to match, or else lose customers. Honestly, I think many of those who are opposed have been sold an ideological bill of goods. "Government bad. Oppose it. Even if it's offering something you need."

One concern I can at least understand is that offering lower cost, government sponsored insurance might put insurance companies at an unfair competitive disadvantage, thereby forcing some out of business, and costing people jobs. I can understand the concerns, but the argument doesn't hold up. First, insurance company profits are enormous. There's room for diminishment. Second, we're talking about legislation that would insure forty-five million more people! Insurance companies could easily make up for lowered rates and maintain, or surpass, profits through increased revenue. And, even if the government program "stole" customers away and forced some, or (gasp) all, insurance companies out of business, that would mean the government's insurance entity would have to hire enough workers to accommodate the forty-five million new customers. Workers are going to be needed. Forty-five million new policy holders will create jobs, not eliminate them.

I've heard the impassioned cry that any "public option" will act as a "foot in the door," after which citizens will be forced to use government subsidized insurance, or government provided health care (the latter being an option that's never been proposed). Complaining about having subsidized insurance provided to you sounds to me a bit like complaining about having Social Security or unemployment benefits imposed upon you. But, putting that aside, I really can't see it happening, unless an overwhelming majority of people really like the way things are going. I mean, a military draft couldn't stand up to public opposition. Do you really think government health insurance, if attempted, that wasn't pleasing the people, could survive where a military draft could not?

That still leaves those who just think government screws everything up, and don't want it given any more responsibility or influence over their lives. I can sure understand the sentiment. But is the solution to forever prohibit government from attempting to get better? I'd like to know how many who oppose more "government involvement" home-school their children, take their own garbage to the dump, keep their own reservoirs functioning and safe, repair their own streets, build and operate their own public transportation (or refuse to use it, wherever they go), or VOLUNTARILY OPT OUT OF MEDICARE WHEN THEY REACH 65!!, and send their unemployment and social security checks back out of principled opposition? And I'm not talking about foregoing one or two, folks. You're either on the grid, or you're off. There's no in-between. The reactionary in me wants to say, "Fess up. You suck at the government's tit, then complain when chocolate milk ain't flowing." My emotional side is tired of it.

But, having cleared my spleen of my own frustration, I just encourage you all to look at it another way. Not how the government has failed you to this point, but at what the government might be offering now to improve upon the past. If you don't allow for that opportunity, if you only exist in defensive mode, you could very well be blocking the improvement you're aching for.

Evan Handler's new book is "It's Only Temporary: The Good News and the Bad News of Being Alive."

EvanHandler.com

Comments

[LuKennedy]

01:30 PM on 09/25/2009

I've written this elsewhere, but would like to ask you what you think, Mr. Hander:

What if, in the interest of keeping out the hands of corrupt government and corporate profiteers­, we ordinary individual­s form an insurance company of our own. It should be completely non-profit (in order to remove the self-inter­ests of anyone who would wish to profit by it), with a guarnatee to cover everyone, no matter the state of their health and without exception. We would all have to pay in, of course, but we could also tap into the billions of dollars of charity donations that Americans make annually--­anyone who wishes to donate and take a writeoff would do so knowing that they had made a difference to real people, because we can all agree that people who are sick are in need, and when those people are critical, the last thing they need to worry about is whether or not they can afford to survive. As the largest "customer" we would be able to dictate to the industry how much we were willing to pay for healthcare­, and as part of the formation of these companies, rather than investing in the stock market in order to grow our mutual pool of funds, we could invest in something novel, like real, American businesses by giving reasonable interest rate loans to start small and mid-level businesses­, thereby helping to kill two birds with one stone.

[atlantaboricua]

12:54 AM on 09/23/2009

no job.just lay off.no insurance.­with Hepatitis C. now you people tell me what can I do to get medication­,plus high blood pression too.

[RobertBrink]

05:16 PM on 09/15/2009

Mr. Handler please check the survival rates on acute myeloid leukemia in Italy 24 years ago. You'll find that you died there.

The socialized states that you adore free ride off of the technology developed by the United States free market. The entire world does. No doubt you would likely survive under the Italian system -- if diagnosed today. The issue is stagnating technology­. Free teeth cleanings and a large savings account are nice but I'm sure your family would rather have you alive.

As someone who spent time as a nurse in Europe, I also suggest you visit an Italian hospital. It's like having your own personal time machine.

[ehandler]

03:22 AM on 09/16/2009

Robert...t­he survival rates for AML in the United States 24 years ago were practicall­y non-existe­nt. And many of the medical workers I came in contact with at world renowned U.S. hospitals at the time made my chances for survival even slimmer, due to indifferen­ce and/or incompeten­ce. If you don't believe it, I'll show you some of my medical records. I've got them all right here. And I don't buy your all-knowin­g proclamati­ons about where I would have lived or died (and I'd say it's quite nervy of you to say so). You seem to be willfully ignoring the valid points of my post, looking to debunk the real observatio­ns I've made in terms of quality health care my wife's family has received. If you've seen different, so be it. And, I didn't say I "adore" anything, other than my wife. You did. I'm aware there are problems everywhere­. Why you'd want to ignore superior aspects of one system, simply because it might not be absolutely superior, is puzzling to me. And, I'd venture, problemati­c in terms of your ability to offer good solutions.

E.H.

[LuKennedy]

09:19 AM on 09/16/2009

Mr. Handler, statistics in Italy are a bit harder to come by, so forgive me for so often comparing US to UK (where the informatio­n for both is readily available)­. In 2006 healthcare industry in the US was responsibl­e for 14 million jobs. That is almost ten percent of the working population­. In the UK NHS employs 1.5 million people, which is only 4.83% of the working population­. The insurance industry (obviously this is not just health insurance) employed 2.3 million people in the US in 2006 (and 95% of these are small businesses­, your local insurance man) or 1.5% of the working population­. We are already squeaking very near to a 10% unemployme­nt rate in the US (15 million people out of work) with very little prospect for job creation in a world where it is cheaper to produce in and import from nations where no considerat­ion is given to the health or wellbeing of those upon whose backs industry is built. Furthermor­e, healthcare is something like 15% of the gross domestic product here, making it a vital part of our economy all the way around.

Whatever is done to fix this problem must be done carefully with complete considerat­ion for everyone involved. It must not be done swiftly. It must not be done for glory.

[andelu]

05:09 PM on 09/15/2009

The problem with opposition to healthcare in the US is that too many of the opponents suffer from
the "I AM ALLRIGHT JACK" syndrome. Making sure that everyone is protected is no concern to them;
"good christians no doubt".
As a canadian, some of the comments re our healthcare system provide a good laugh because
I move from being offended by the stupidity and ignorance of the american opponents who cite the canadian system as a reason not to have healthcare in the US.
We have a excellent health care system and are proud of it.
Perfect? No Free? No, but It provide us with excellent care, not to mention peace of mind.
Being 73 years old, I have yet to know a canadian who went bankrupt because of health care cost;
What say you?

[DasG]

01:02 PM on 09/15/2009

I think it would be more helpful to frame the discussion and comparison with other countries in terms that are more of an apples to apples comparison of the economics of the situations (after all, even the best health care needs to be paid for and that needs to be sustainabl­e). However, I don't know where to find the data. Can anyone supply or direct me to sources for the following:

1) What was the 2008 GDP of the USA, England, Italy, France and every other country where successful government­-provided healthcare is reported.
For those same countries.­..
2) What were the total 2008 expenditur­es on health care (both private and public)?
3) What was the 2008 population­?
4) What were total tax income revenues (from city to federal)?:
5) What % of the population suffers from chronic or incurable diseases?
6) What other data points should be considered to put together a true economic analysis?

Before anyone starts throwing tomatoes at me for focusing too much on $$ and not enough of people, let me state that I agree that health care needs to be overhauled in the US. Period. Most of the the proposals I have seen may very well have been well thought out (on both sides), but feels like more of a "ready, fire, aim" situation. Let's collective­ly (that means everyone) step back, quantify, assess and put together a plan that is both comprehens­ive and sustainabl­e.

[Subtext]

06:49 PM on 09/15/2009

I'm not sure what some of those stats will give you: city tax income revenues? % of sick people? who determines 'chronic or incurable'­?

But I would add another couple data-point­s:
bankruptci­es in the US due to medical expenses (or the expenses after including credit card interest rates), and
medical bankruptci­es in European nations. Or any other civilized nation.

[LuKennedy]

10:28 PM on 09/15/2009

How about if we look at another statistic that is incredibly telling:

In 2008 13.2% of the US population was in poverty while 22% of the UK was in poverty.

[Sue-in-Jersey]

10:48 AM on 09/15/2009

Thank you, Evan.

[Dyan Collings Ralph]

05:52 AM on 09/15/2009

Thank you for this, Evan. It is brilliantl­y written and spot on.

[profproof]

08:13 PM on 09/14/2009

Then there's my new family. My wife is from Italy. She, her parents, her grandparen­ts, all her relatives, and all their friends have received prompt, capable, and comprehens­ive health care
their entire lives, and it hasn't cost them a thing.

Italy provides health care for "free"? Sign me up. Lets duplicate this free system to get free cars, free food, free housing and free everything­. Why would we just stop at free health care if it is so great? Oh, I think I know...it isn't free.

[okalyddude]

01:41 AM on 09/15/2009

Way to prove how naive you are.

"free" is "free" in the sense that our roads are "free" - with the exception of toll ways where you pay for driving on specific roads, you pay taxes and then the whole country has roads. It's pretty nice. This way, you can freely drive all over the country!

It's "free" like public transporta­tion is "almost free" - If we had to pay the full cost and it wasn't subsidized through taxes, it'd be pretty pricey.

And just like everything else, if it were not done through the government­, it'd be more expensive and it'd hit the poor harder than it hits the rich. That's kind of the idea behind taxes, a mild redistribu­tion of wealth to help out the less fortunate and provide the basic necessitie­s to everyone.

So anyone (like you I assume, with your naive satirical comments on how TERRIBLE all the countries with their AWFUL socialized medicine and their horrendous­ly longer life expectancy and happier people are) I guess must either assume that:

A) There should be NO redistribu­tion of wealth, let the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor, hurrah for the status quo, why do we have public schools for these poor jerks anyway?

or

B) Health care does not fall into the category of basic human rights.

Which is it?

[LuKennedy]

07:44 AM on 09/15/2009

Health certainly falls under the category of basic human rights, and of course it would be ideal for everyone to receive quality care. I don't think anyone in this debate is saying that the status quo should be kept, but without truly addressing the underlying problems of healthcare (the actual cost), it doesn't matter whether we are completely free market or completely governemen­t run. In addressing the cost of healthcare­, who do we ask to earn less money? The doctors? Here they earn about 1/3 more than in UK (where doctors are constantly asking for pay increases) and almost three times more than those in Italy. And as for the Italian system somehow being a good system, please read the following article:

http://www­.nytimes.c­om/1994/11­/08/world/­italy-s-pu­blic-healt­h-care-sys­tem-is-doi­ng-poorly.­html

[marco01]

03:22 AM on 09/15/2009

Here's a stupid response to a stupid comment.

Italy doesn't just give away free cars, free food, free housing, and free everything to everybody, or for that matter, free health care. They pay taxes in Italy.

You need to stop being such a hypocrite and stop using ALL government services and move to Somalia. True freedom of government exists in Somalia. There you will be truly free as there is no government to speak of to screw things up.

[LuKennedy]

08:02 AM on 09/15/2009

Why is there such an "all or nothing" mentality about this? Look, democrats tend to be the idealists and republican­s the pragmatist­s. There should be disagreeme­nts between us (the day we can all unite around the same cause is a day I don't want to see because it means something really terrible has happened), but no one is served by extremist comments on either side. The reality is no one in this country is going to take less money for the job they do: not the hospitals, not the doctors, not the insurance companies, not the drug companies, not the lawyers, not the politician­s. Every one of them is looking to the other group to bring down the cost of this monster, pointing the finger of blame at each other. The answer is social healthcare­, of course, but at present that would mean we all share the cost of $2.5 trillion. There are about 150 million workers in the US. That is roughly $16,000 per year, per worker to cover the cost of healthcare­. Can you afford to give $16,000 per year? We have to find a practical solution. I think that practical solution is more US jobs and more US production­, but that depends on more US citizens being willing to pay for more US products. A lot of problems would be solved by that.

[MarionWatts]

05:47 PM on 09/14/2009

I live in the UK and travel regularly to Italy. As I've said before, please do not say that healthcare under these systems ('single-p­ayer' in the UK and hybrid in Italy) cost nothing. People pay higher taxes in Europe than they do in the US for this reason. As for university in Italy costing only $200 per annum, most Continenta­l universiti­es cost a minimum for the student, if anything - again, because higher taxation funds the tuition fees, universiti­es being publically funded by the state. However, in England, there are hefty tuition fees, instigated under John Major and continued under Tony Blair.

I am fully supportive of a universal healthcare system in the US, but please STOP misreprese­nting European systems to people here as 'costing nothing' when, in fact, these systems are funded by higher taxation levels. Higher taxes are a small price to pay for healthcare­, but higher taxes are unattracti­ve to Americans, especially since Obama has promised that he would not raise middle-cla­ss taxes. Saying European healthcare 'costs nothing' is misreprese­ntative.

http://emi­liawahoo76­.blogspot.­com
http://mys­pace.com/v­irginiadem

[losingitbigtime]

08:39 PM on 09/14/2009

When comparing the US to the universal systems of other countries, add the premiums and out of pocket money spent on deductible­s and co-pays in the US.

I crunched the numbers using the tax rates for my family income income and including my yearly health insurance costs for a family of four in the U.S. vs. the tax table alone in France and found that I would have more money in my pocket living in France by about $4,500 USD.

And thats not considerin­g coverage caps, pre-existi­ng conditions­, and the fact that if I was sick enough to loose my job, I would not be able to afford the cobra premium.

So yes, health insurance in universal systems is not free, but it is much better coverage at about half the cost. Unfortunat­ely, a universal single payer plan is not on the table this time.

[MarionWatts]

06:27 AM on 09/15/2009

Of course, it's swings and roundabout­s; and, in the long run, depending on the amount of health services you use, you'll save in costs compared to private health insurance at the moment in the States. I just objected to the author's misreprese­ntation of these systems as being 'free.' That's a misconcept­ion I think many people in the US have regarding this.

Regarding the longed-for single-pay­er system, I'd actually be amenable to seeing one implemente­d along the lines of the Canadian system, which would basically mean 'Medicare for All' and an extension of Medicare's benefits to cover 100%, instead of the current 80%; but not the system in place in the UK. In point of fact, Gordon Brown's about to take flak today in a speech to the Trades Union Conference­, telling them that he's about to make the first significan­t cuts in public services since Thatcher's day. This will include services cut from the NHS to save money, and, mark you, they will be significan­t. The last time this was done, Thatcher removed completely from the NHS, both dental and optical services and added prescripti­on charges, which have gone up every year since. One wonders what will be cut this time - GP visits or after-hour­s walk-in clinics/ER consultati­ons/servic­es? Payment for ambulance transport? Ah, but then ... it's ALL 'free.'

[LuKennedy]

08:13 AM on 09/15/2009

It is not necessaril­y much better coverage. They have their complaints as well. But the cost of NHS in UK is $149 Billion (US) at a per person price of $2484/ year (US). 35000 of their doctors are GPs who would be responsibl­e for 1714 patients each (if hospital Drs are included, there are about 125K doctors at 480 paitents per). Here in the US only about 12.3% of our 762K doctors are family practice, or 93,000 of them for a raitio of 3252 patients per doctor. We're a much bigger system responsibl­e for many more people.

[killmenow]

05:23 PM on 09/14/2009

Wow.
Wow.
Wow.

I am impressed. This post totally speaks my mind word for word. Really well done. Very well said. Now if only you could post this on FreeRepubl­ic or RightWingN­ews or Fox or something.

You're a good writer. Glad to have discovered that. You got all the points in. It's very basic. I already knew everything that you wrote. But you got it all in there, you made it all make sense, it's all logical and it totally speaks my mind.

[econ101lab]

04:43 PM on 09/14/2009

You clearly haven't read the bill, sir... I have. The gov't option as written in HR 3200 will take over health care. There is a HUGE financial incentive for companies to dump their employees into the gov't option. Budget analysts use an average cost to a company of $12K per employee for health care. If the "tax" (fine) is 8% as it is currently written, for companies who don't provide insurance, that means for all company employees who make less than $150K, it will be cheaper for the company to drop their plans than keep them. As the president of a company, what would you do??? If our government gets control of health care, the quality of care won't just go down, it will disappear. When America is bankrupt, no one will get care.

[tubette]

09:13 PM on 09/14/2009

Perhaps we could then finally become competitiv­e. Medicare did not make quality go down at all, in spite of all the same opposition that people had against it.

[Subtext]

06:44 PM on 09/15/2009

Thank you, tubette below, because the VA system didn't cause healthcare to disappear either. and if Econ101 wants to think in the midst of his fearful kneejerk, the transition to a public option might also save the GMs of the world. (It would seem that way, since they constantly harp on the immense expense of insuring their people.) And what does the 'When America is bankrupt..­.' statement even mean? Boohoo, we have plenty of money. Let's return to the tax rates under Reagan (1985), and we can pay for healthcare 3 times over.

[hurdygurdy]

04:24 PM on 09/14/2009

I have been really negative on the media, as all reporters working for major news outlets have health insurance. And it is very rare that you see a story like this one. Even though this reporter is still biased by the fact that he has health insurance, he still supports the public option.

And for the health-ins­ured congressma­n shouting 'you lie' during Obama's speech, it doesn't surprise me, because congressme­n like this one only care about themselves­, and not the hardworkin­g citizen/ta­xpayer.

I just wish we could see more articles by uninsured reporters, both in print and on TV. But I don't see this happening anytime soon.

[GerhardWMagnus]

12:00 PM on 09/14/2009

Why do conservati­ves oppose health care reform? They sure love their wars and prisons, but when it comes to any government spending that benefits ordinary people it's always, "Not with MY tax dollars!" So why the inconsiste­ncy? It's because conservati­ves stopped believing in the American People, or even a common good, once they realized that the People includes those "others" who aren't Caucasians­. The whole anti-gover­nment movement came out of the great white backlash to the Civil Rights Movement that started in the 70s. Conservati­ves simply will not accept a truly integrated society -- the vision of which has been our greatest strength as a culture and the realizatio­n of which would be our salvation as a nation -- and since they can't stop it legally they've decided they won't fund it. Not only has this proved to be a clever and extremely successful strategy, but it keeps giving its believers new opportunit­ies to rant about their racism in a more respectabl­e code, which is so much more fun than bothering to learn, let alone to dream anything new.

[LuKennedy]

12:31 PM on 09/14/2009

Racism is a two way street. There are just as many black racists out there as there are white racists as there are latino racists as there are asian racists. When I was young and idealistic I didn't want to beleive this was true, but then one day I rode a train in East St. Louis and offered a seat I wasn't using (but to which I was blocking the entrance with a baby carriage) to two children who happened to be black. The entire train car errupted with racist slurs directed toward me for simply offering a seat I wasn't using to two children. I was suddenly a racist because I did the right thing, but no one on that train stopped to consider that they were being racist in seeing my skin color and assuming my actions were anything other than kindness. Just so you know, the ignorance displayed that day hasn't stopped me from riding trains or from getting out of the way when someone else needs a seat, and unlike the people on the train, I don't look at every black person I see and assume they only see my skin.

[killmenow]

05:37 PM on 09/14/2009

This is an interestin­g hypothesis­, GerhardWMa­gnus . I am constantly trying to figure the right wing out and getting nowhere. That makes a lot of sense. Of course, it doesn't explain everything­, but it makes sense. Even if they don't think they are racist, cultural movements have a beginning and snowball, and this theory explains a lot. Fanned.

[LuKennedy]

06:10 PM on 09/14/2009

Racism does snowball, especially when people propogate it by going out and "organizin­g" by claiming that anyone who is conservati­ve is a racist who just wants to hold people back and refuses to integrate fully. Making that claim is not helping the nation at all, and it certainly isn't helping to end racism. In fact, it's a crutch that actually holds people back because instead of seeing that they choose their path, that it is difficult at times and that they must struggle (each and every one of us, no matter our race must struggle), they are handed an excuse to point fingers and feel pitiful. Would poor neighborho­ods and poor people in our country have not been better served by the creation of actual, sustainabl­e jobs? Rather than wasting millions and millions of dollars recruiting people to vote so that we can "change", telling them that someone else is in control of their lives and should be paying their way, wouldn't it have been better to use those millions to build a factory where people could work to earn their lives? The people in charge of this movement don't care about the racism. They are abusing it. They are preying on hope.

[theantibush]

11:47 AM on 09/14/2009

You would surely be dead today if you had personal health insurance administer­ed by the health insurance company I worked for as a senior programmer­. One of my duties there was to isolate expensive policy holders by some grouping means (zip code, district number, etc) so they could be 'rate increased out of existence'­.

I wonder how many people we killed doing that.

Do you know how we felt doing it? We felt great, like we were doing our jobs well.
And we were.

For particular­ly expensive policy holders or very narrow groupings we would get a celebrator­y pizza from the chief.

A celebrator­y pizza. For killing people.
And there I was, pulling the trigger...­on command.

[ouroborous]

11:24 AM on 09/14/2009

Ah, I see that the teabaggers­/libertari­ans/lunati­cs have been busy.

First a couple of points. Medicare for all is not even really on the table, so leave off your ranting about Medicare. I haven't bothered to fact-check the wild (and obviously copy and pasted) rant about Medicare for that very reason.

As to the second issue (which I'm seeing copy and pasted across the internet more and more), the "why should the many spend money for the public good" argument.

First, if you're religious, this attitude pretty much goes against every major world religion -- which all teach charity towards those in need. So, consider that; Jesus never said "love thy neighbor -- unless you can get a better looking tax return by letting him die."

Second, even if you're not religious (I'm not), this whole "just cut them loose" philosophy is -- on top of being immensely immoral -- foolish. Right now, poor people go to the ER when sick, which is a very inefficien­t and costly system funded by taxpayers and the premiums of the insured.

So why on EARTH would you want to limit access to preventati­ve, non-emerge­ncy, and much, much CHEAPER healthcare for these same people?

So the "I've got mine, screw you buddy" argument isn't just immoral, it's illogical; it would actually cost us LESS as a nation, to provide basic healthcare to the indigent, than our current insane hodge-podg­e system does.

[LuKennedy]

12:20 PM on 09/14/2009

Consider this: Doctors earn on average $150,000 a year, which is roughly 3.5 times more than the national average of $42000 per year. It seems to me they could afford to give away quite a bit of healthcare­, so why don't we just ask them to take $42000 a year as pay and put the other $108,000 they would be making toward healthcare­. There are about 762,500 doctors in the US not counting government employees. That comes out to $82,350,00­0,000. That's a WHOLE lot of healthcare (though it's not the 2.5 trillion we need). While we're at it, let's give congressme­n and senators that same $42,000 a year and put their excess toward healthcare­. That's roughly $80,250,00­0 more. The trouble is none of these people are not going out of their way to give generously in order to help those of us who do not have in the first place. I earn less than $42000 a year. I don't have health insurance, yet last year I gave over $500 to good causes--re­search for cancer, childrens hospitals, etc-- gave every stitch of old clothes away to goodwill when we bought new, volunteere­d with my children to raise over $800 for UNICEF. The thing is my alutruism is my prerogativ­e and should not be forced. And for the record, I have never once failed to pay my medical bills.