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
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 @ whitecollaÂrgreenspacÂeguy@hotmaÂil.com, if you have questions. Please share this with everybody.
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!
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.
Your pessimism is pathetic. Doesn't the U.S. Government run the U.S. Marines? Are you some kind of defeat-monkey?
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.
If the alternative to Fascsim is 'Socialism' as you define it, I'll take the later. Social Democracies in Scandinavia have much higher standards of living than we do.
I guess you are slamming GWB, but the objective truth is that we have moved closer to Fascism since he left - though he did not steer us away from it in his last few years.
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.
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.
Fix the problems don't destroy what works.
59% of Americans support single payer.
We have 59 Senators who caucus with the Democrats.
Let's get this done!
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.