Ted Kennedy and Health Care

I've gotten my wires crossed around the passing of Ted Kennedy and health care, and the dialogue between the parties and in the media hasn't helped me any. I'm going to try to unbundle my thinking here, if I can.

The first question I have to ask myself is do I really want to be healthy or would I rather just argue and have that delicious feeling of victimization. I mean why haven't I gone really ballistic about wanting what my leaders (mostly guys, mostly white) have in D.C. -- single payer health care provided to Congress, the White House, the judicial system, the state houses, the governors -- all the leaders.

Take Ted Kennedy, for example, as he struggled with cancer. He had single payer health care provided for by the government, while many (maybe a majority of) Americans have appeared to be angry at the prospect of their having it too, or of having it delivered to their elderly loved ones, suffering in much the same way as Kennedy. Do we feel that we don't deserve it? Are we giving it to our leaders (after all we're paying for it with our tax dollars) with some deep hope that in their gratitude they'll maybe treat us a little bit better? If so, then why doesn't it follow that we would want what they have?

Maybe it's because, for instance with Ted Kennedy, we feel inferior to them. I have to admit I felt more than a bit inferior hearing about all the friends he had, all the papers and books he wrote, all the bills he passed and then, of course, the fact that he was a Kennedy, his hair ruffled by the winds of Hyannis. In some deep sense, I have to admit it -- I just don't feel quite as good as him.

But then I can't help circling Mary Jo Kopechne's death, how he abandoned her, how he panicked as the car sank and then tried to lie, how the forces around him (who had seen their chance of once again returning to the White House under another Kennedy) struggled to spin the story, twist the mess that he'd made and keep him running for the Oval Office. It didn't work, of course, which was perhaps a blessing for Mister Kennedy because he seemed to become a far more serious politician after that, even as he slowly bloated himself -- perhaps, from the guilt and pain. Ironically, maybe those events so many years earlier finished him, since he died so shortly after the fortieth anniversary of Mary Jo's death. In short, despite all the spin, the myth, the money, the power and the glory, poor Ted Kennedy was just another one of us, a human being doing the best he could, like a plumber, or a carpenter or a secretary or Mary Jo's parents or all of us who are trying to survive, trying to live, blossom and grow as best we can.

Which again brings me back to why doesn't each and every one of us want (and feel we deserve) what he had: single payer health care? And it's not socialism or communism if we the people want it. That's the point of democracy. If enough of us want it, then we can get it and then we should call it Health Care for a Democracy, not socialism or communism or even liberalism, all of which seem more about what the leaders think the people want, not actually what the people do want.

So do I really want equality in my democracy? Do I want to have what my leaders have, or am I just too battered by the corporations and the parade of politicians, experts and shills to know what's good for me? Am I okay with remaining a victim? Am I okay with believing that my leaders are better than me, am I okay with remaining unhealthy along with my fellow citizens? Because if I am then, as is correct in a democracy, that's what I'll get.

Follow Stephen Gyllenhaal on Twitter: www.twitter.com/stephgyllenhaal

Comments

[whitecollargreenspacegut]

Our hearts and prayers are with the Kennedy family. They and our nation has suffered a great loss. The greatest tribute would be for all of us to continue to be pro-active in our fight to get universal health care.
If we make a simple change in the way the government manages the 1/2 billion square feet of office space used by its two million workers, we could quickly save over 100 billion dollars per year. Most of this space is used by white collar workers and it goes unused 70% of the time. Adding just a second shift for white collar jobs could cut the cost by up to 50%. Wouldn't it save enough money to pay for universal health care. Wouldn't it also reduce the carbon footprint of the government by 30% to 50%.

For details go to:
http://whitecollargreenspace.blogspot.com/

The fact that 50 million of our friends, neighbors, and relatives do not have health coverage is a human tragedy. See www.whitecollargreenspace.blogspot.com for an immediate solution. The government has the money right now to pay for it.
Please post a comment if you do not think this will work or send me an email @ il.comolla­rgreenspac­eguy@hotma­il.com, if you have questions. Please share this with everybody.

[ajlafleche]

I have to laugh at the conservatives' statements here at how bad congress has it now...for years, they cried about wanting the same level and type of care they now decry!

[Vuki]

I am reminded of how fortunate we are in Canada who have access to healthcare. We need to honor all those before us who sacrificed and marched in the streets so that all children and future generations would have access to health care, education and a future free of back alley doctors, and a future where children will not go to sleep hungry. We are fortunate to have had such predecessors who fought against profit made from illness, profit made on old age and children’s education. We are fortunate to have such predecessors who now fight a political battle against right wing economic policies that are dismantling the work that our predecessors fought to provide for us. Like generations before this is a class war ladies and gentlemen. The Bushites want a social structure where ninety percent of us fight for the scraps from their bountiful table which our work provided.

[Lavina]

Good job, Mr. Gyllenhaal !!!!

[bubbainca]

I don't understand why people run away from the word "socialism" as applied to health care. You are damned right I want socialized medicine! I cannot think of a more appropriate area to apply socialist principles to. The human race is about socialism in some basic measure in case people haven't noticed. True capitalism is the preserve of the animal kingdom where if you are fat, you don't just have to pay for an extra seat, you get eaten! Enough of this survival-o­f-the-fitt­est nonsense already and I am sick of progressives tip-toeing around the S word. Selling life to the highest bidder is just Shameful. Now that's an 'S' word let's all deal with.

[UNCLEJOE]

The unspoken danger of Privatized health care is the greed involved in selling medical care by doctors and hospitals. Doctors selling unnecessarily expensive surgeries for the surgical fees is rampant in the medical field; Hospitals unnecessarily prolonging hospital stays just to increase the profit is rampant; expensive medical procedures not necessary are rampant. The medical industry along with the drug companies are based on profit at the cost of human lives.

Take the greed for medical services out of the equation and two wonderful changes will take place: we will get rid of the Get-Rich Quick Quack doctors and hospital company bottom-line administrators and the medical services will become more efficient and much more economical. Certain industries should be based on service for the health and welfare of its citizens. And health care is definitely in this category.

Most Americans who have lived long enough know the truth that Greed attracts the wrong people in the medical field just as politics attracts the most dishonest greedy con men.

Salaried doctors with bonuses, will get rid of the greed that kills and maims Americans in untold. millions. Nationalized medicine for Rich & Poor is long overdue in the USA.

THE FED MUST GO!

[WTHPeople]

Why can't people understand the basic economics of this?
If I am an employer and I pay 20,000.00 a month to cover my employees and that makes up 15% of my expenditures. Along comes the government and they tell me if I do not continue to cover my employees I will be hit with an 8% fine. Let me see which is more 15% or 8%. I think I will pay the 8% and toss my people to the "Government Plan" and save a lot of money. It is simple as 2+2 = 4. You WILL loose you health care and you will have no say in it. Your employer will ALWAYS go with the plan that saves them money. They are not in business to help you, they are in business to make a profit, you WILL be a victim of that and you WILL be subject to the new health care rules and regulations like it or not.

[DocTwain]

So what's the problem? Don't you think that America can make a good single payer health care plan?
Your pessimism is pathetic. Doesn't the U.S. Government run the U.S. Marines? Are you some kind of defeat-monkey?

[toobusy]

The U.S. government also runs Social Security. How's that working out? I certainly don't plan on it being there for me or my kids in the future.

[tbirdalum]

Well, I've got news for you WTH. Thats the way it is with private health insurance where my wife works now. Whatever company her employer picks as their insurer thats who she has to go with. And, by the way, each year her premiums go up and her co-pays and deductibles go up as well. So, why don't you quit trying to use smoke and mirrors to confuse the people. If the people had a single payer health care option, don't you think that would be better for them? I have the VA, which is single payer, and I'm sure glad I've got it. I pay the VA $8 for each prescription and $25 for each dr. visit and the VA here in Memphis takes real good care of me and I like all the people at this facility. My brother-in-law goes there too and he is pleased as I am. You can't tell me that with all the trillions that americans pay to the private insurance co's. and big pharma that this country can't have a good single payer system that works. The only difference is you have to take away the big salaries and bonus's from the CEO's and the upper level exec's and give it back to the people from whence it came.

[harveyr2]

Why hasn't every congressman/woman who supports this health care reform committed to buying the public option for themselves and their families??? I don't believe their sincerity until they do this.

[WilliamBradford]

Starting with the basics, we don't live in a Democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic. Especially with regard to this discussion, the difference is important.

Just because a majority of the voting public "want" something at a given moment does not mean they get it from the federal government. Our founders understood that this would lead to anarchy. We have elected representatives that, theoretically, follow the limits and procedures set forth in our Constitution and enact laws accordingly.

If we give the government control over another 10% of our economy, that is Socialism. Socialism is a long sliding scale between Individualism and Authoritarianism. We sit somewhere on that scale, but every step toward Socialism is a permanent step and should be taken very cautiously by those who value freedom.

[jmpurser]

We live in a Democratic constitutional republic.

[WilliamBradford]

Why is this an important distinction? Are there examples of non-Democratic constitutional republics?

[tweck]

It's not a problem to call something Communist or Socialist if that's what it is. You can have a Socialist Democracy, or a Communist Democracy even. So long as the people have the power, you can be capitalist, communist, or whatever you want and still have a bill of rights, a constitution, and all the personal freedom in the world.

There is nothing that I've read in any of our historic documents that claims that America is a Capitalist Democracy. It only says that it's a Democracy. Our constitution does not say anything at all about the type of economic philosophy we should operate under. If I'm wrong, I'll happily admit it, but I'm pretty sure I'm right.

We have to stop being afraid of Economic Philosophies. They are NOT things that replace Electoral Systems, or that undermine the freedom of the people. The only thing that can undermine freedom is oppressive laws that compromise peoples' essential freedoms, which are comprised of thought, action, speech, and control of government.

[WilliamBradford]

The essential freedom that you omit is the right to be secure in your property and ownership. Without this right, the others quickly become irrelevant.

The essential difference between "Democracy" and "Communism" is who has a right to earn money, create businesses, and own property. Our Founders strongly believed in the individual right to property and to "secure the blessings of liberty". Under a Communist government, the people work for the government, in the way the government decides, and are cared for by the government.

These are not issue to be treated so lightly. People throughout history have been fooled into thinking they could have a "Democratic Communism". It has never worked out well.

[Pablo175]

People don't want single payer. Most are happy with private insurance. Most don't trust the government to run health care.

Fix the problems don't destroy what works.

[FloaterBall]

This person does want single payer.

[DocTwain]

59% of American doctors support single payer.
59% of Americans support single payer.
We have 59 Senators who caucus with the Democrats.
Let's get this done!

[gator32301]

you can have a democracy while having communist and socialist economic systems

[Awake-and-Sing]

China has proven that capitalism does not equate with democracy and freedom, no matter how conservatives spin their failed philosophy.

[WilliamBradford]

So you yearn to experience the freedom of China?

[overd0g1]

What if "we" (%50.1 of people who actually vote... maybe 10% of the populace) want slavery of the 49%? That's just democracy. Democracy is good for electing representatives, and that's all. And that's only when their power is severely limited by a strong constitution.

[Joe The Nerd Ferraro - Huffpost Blogger]

dude, slavery was tried here and we, thankfully, got rid of it. It took a majority after the South left, but it got done while they were out of the room. But if you would like to run for public office on that agenda, please feel free. It is a democratic nation. A great by-product of your campaign will be a much greater percentage of people coming out to politically hand your head to you.

[RightWingMarine]

way to intentionally miss overdogs point.

[Kathy Bishop]

Ted Kennedy did not have single payer health insurance. He had a policy through the federal health insurance program which is like the exchange that Obama is proposing with the exception of the public option. While better than some because you have the government to appeal to when the insurer treats you badly, and the insurer cannot refuse to cover you or cancel your coverage after you get sick, you some of the same issues that anyone in the private sector has. Even with government "negotiation" the premiums have risen faster than inflation; the deductibles, the co-pays for Dr.s and drugs have gone up; the out-of-network reimbursement is based on the same United Health Group database that has been in the news lately. Even in this exchange, where there is some competition, there is little in the way of price competition. Everyone goes up and up. In my 17 years with the program the premium alone went up 300% while my paycheck did not.

[tbirdalum]

So, that would mean you would be for a single payer system?

[jsarets]

Kennedy had two health financing plans: Medicare because he was over 65 and FEHBP because he worked for the federal government. Medicare is a single-payer system but FEHBP is a private-payer system funded by taxpayers but operated by the usual suspects.

To be sure, most of the Senate and a generous portion of the House are old enough to be covered by Medicare. But the reform bills being discussed these days are a lot more similar to FEHBP. If you want the same coverage that Congress gets, then you either don't really want single-payer or don't really understand FEHBP.