I am always grateful for an economist who, instead of preaching doom and gloom prognostications about our country's future, actually attempts to offer some constructive ideas about how to solve these problems. Such was the case with James Cohan, a Boston professor who intelligently, articulately, and concisely enunciates an excellent plan for getting us out of this recession - combined with a comprehensive yet brief explanation of the economic principles underlying that plan - in language that even a layman can understand.
What will it take to put 14.9 million jobless back to work?
Peter Cohan
When you consider that 70 percent of U.S. economic growth stems from consumers, it becomes obvious that there is no hope of a true economic recovery until companies create more jobs than they destroy. That's because people without jobs can't borrow money to make up for their lack of income and they can't spend more of what they don't have. And until those worker are able to increase their spending, economic growth stagnates.
That's why news that 14.9 million jobless are seeking work is the most important piece of economic data. The biggest unanswered question is who to put those people back to work. Is government the answer? Or will free markets do the trick? With the right boost from government, natural economic forces will bring back the jobs.
That's because I think there are two economic forces that need to be unleashed. The first is Say's Law, the idea that supply creates its own demand. And in this case, what I am talking about is the supply of capital on a corporate balance sheet that demands to be spent -- preferably on strategies that enable the company to take market share from hobbled competitors.
And the second law, is what I call the Two Fears. The first, is the fear of losing your money and the second is fear of falling behind your peers. I think most individuals and businesses are currently possessed of the first fear so they are hoarding their resources. According to the Two Fears, economic growh ensues when the first fear flips into the second one.
To get the economy rolling, we need to connect Say's Law with the Two Fears. To do that, the economy needs cash-rich market leaders who find themselves gripped by Say's Law -- which spurs them to spend that cash so they can leave their competitors in the dust. This could catalyze the shift from the first fear to the second one. And that would make all the difference.
How so? If other businesses in the leaders' industries start losing market share to those more aggressive competitors, then -- if they have or can get the resources -- they'll feel an irrepressible urge to keep up. This will cause them to spend their cash on market expansion. And as more and more competitors jump on that expansion bandwagon, they'll hire people to provide the products and services needed to grab the market share they fear will slip from their grasp.
This just leaves one enormous problem: How to get enough cash on the balance sheets of market leaders to make Say's Law kick in. As I posted, the very high 6.6 percent growth in productivity in the second quarter of 2009 is likely to boost corporate profits. What would also help is for companies to take advantage of a rising stock market to sell more shares to the public to pay down their debt.
And government could also help stimulate growth -- as it did back in the 1970s when the Defense Department's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) built a ground-shifting technology, what we now know as the Internet. To encourage economic growth, such a technology must be one that is irresistible for business because it leads to quantum leaps in productivity.
All this may sound simple, but it will be difficult to pull off. And until then the economy will remain stuck in neutral which is bad for all those 14.9 million people looking for jobs.
There are copious examples from recent history to support Cohan's thesis. One need only look at the unparalleled expansion that began after the creation of the Intercontinental Railroad in the late-19th Century; the prosperity that occurred in the 1950s and 1960s due to the television/automobile boom in the 1950s and 1960s; and, most recently, the economic golden age of the 1990s, brought about by the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act of 1991 that led to the creation of the Mosaic Web Browser (the springboard for the commercial internet) and was created and introduced by (as well as ultimately passed due to the efforts of) a United States Senator from Tennessee named Al Gore.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Friday, September 4, 2009
Senator Dukakis?
I have always felt that Michael Dukakis received an undeserved reputation during his 1988 presidential campaign. Starting out with a 17-point-lead over his opponent, Vice President George Bush, Dukakis eventually watched it slip away as he became the target of one of the most vicious smear campaigns in recent political history - charges of ideological extremism, softness on crime (with an unmistakable racist subtext), and general goofiness (such as the infamous "Dukakis in the tank" ad, which in my opinion was cruelly misconstrued by the press) were all used against him by Bush and his chief political hatchet man, Lee Atwater. Dukakis chose not to react to any of the mud being slung at him, viewing it as beneath the dignity of the office he sought. Instead, he ran a campaign that diligently focused on having an intelligent discussion of the issues with the American public, even as he allowed his opponent to mouth shallow right-wing platitudes while wallowing in the political gutter. The end result? George Bush beat Michael Dukakis by 9-points, marking a 26-point drop from where the Massachusetts Governor had stood less than half a year earlier.
All of this has left for the American people a very sour taste about Michael Dukakis - with conservatives because they bought into the right-wing propaganda about the dangers of Dukakis' unapologetic liberalism, and with liberals because they could never forgive a man who seemed destined to end the eight-year reign of Reaganism for horribly botching his campaign. Neither side has given him the credit he deserved for his intellectual honesty and for the fact that it is a rare politician indeed who loses because he is unwilling (rather than all too eager) to stoop for office. That is why I feel it is very appropriate that Dukakis is being considered as a temporary replacement for Ted Kennedy in the United States Senate. Not only would such an appointment serve as an appropriate honor for a man with a distinguished career, but it would also perfectly fill the bill for Governor Deval Patrick's needs: A Senator who is well-respected enough that his qualifications for office will not be questioned, whose personal character is beyond dispute, and whose lack of interest in seeking a long-term career in the Senate will enable him to graciously step aside when it comes time for the special election next January. I could elaborate on this point even further, but will leave the remainder of this argument to the following article. Suffice to say that it is my strong hope that September 2009 will see the instatement of Senator Michael Stanley Dukakis.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/08/30/a_seat_fit_for_dukakis/
All of this has left for the American people a very sour taste about Michael Dukakis - with conservatives because they bought into the right-wing propaganda about the dangers of Dukakis' unapologetic liberalism, and with liberals because they could never forgive a man who seemed destined to end the eight-year reign of Reaganism for horribly botching his campaign. Neither side has given him the credit he deserved for his intellectual honesty and for the fact that it is a rare politician indeed who loses because he is unwilling (rather than all too eager) to stoop for office. That is why I feel it is very appropriate that Dukakis is being considered as a temporary replacement for Ted Kennedy in the United States Senate. Not only would such an appointment serve as an appropriate honor for a man with a distinguished career, but it would also perfectly fill the bill for Governor Deval Patrick's needs: A Senator who is well-respected enough that his qualifications for office will not be questioned, whose personal character is beyond dispute, and whose lack of interest in seeking a long-term career in the Senate will enable him to graciously step aside when it comes time for the special election next January. I could elaborate on this point even further, but will leave the remainder of this argument to the following article. Suffice to say that it is my strong hope that September 2009 will see the instatement of Senator Michael Stanley Dukakis.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/08/30/a_seat_fit_for_dukakis/
The Making of the President: 2012
In October 2005, I boldly made the following prediction in an op-ed piece for my college newspaper, The Bard Observer:
I, Matthew Rozsa, as of October 6, 2005, hereby predict that Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States.
Since then I have tried to replicate that success by attempting to oraculate as to the 2012 presidential contest, with conclusions that vacillated wildly back and forth. Yet now, since I am at roughly the same chronological distance from that election as I was when I first weathered the tempest of contempt almost four years ago, I think it is time for me to offer a definitive prediction about the national decision that is still more than three years away. Here it is:
1) The four main candidates will be former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, former Alaska Governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, former Georgia congressman and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Given the extensive fundraising required of presidential candidates since the 1970s, I find it highly unlikely that any dark horses will emerge at the last minute; indeed, the last presidential candidate to be nominated by a major party who didn't appear in the top four in polls at this time (three years or so before the actual election) was Jimmy Carter in 1976.
2) Palin and Gingrich have too many political liabilities too serve as viable candidates - Gingrich with his spotty personal life, reputed narcissism, and decade-and-a-half out of power, and Palin with her severe political inexperience, perceived intellectual deficiencies, and tendency to put herself in an unflattering spotlight on numerous wince-inducing occasions. Both have low personal approval ratings,and perform very poorly in run-off polls against Barack Obama. Although each one has a very special appeal to certain elements of the Republican party base (Gingrich among more cerebral conservatives and Palin among poorly educated hard-righters and paleo-cons), neither will be perceived as having the ability to expand beyond those bases. What's worse (for them), all of the positive attributes they possess will be present in more electable alternatives (i.e, Romney and Huckabee). As such, I see both of them being eliminated rather quickly.
3) In a situation where the economy is still struggling by late 2011/early 2012, Romney will be the obvious candidate. His extensive background as a fixer-upper in the business community and sterling personal integrity will be exactly what the Republican base and American public crave in such an environment - the former because of his unwavering loyalty to the oligarchy of wealthy Americans and big businesses that rule the Republican party, and the latter because his business background can be sold very easily as a prime qualification for getting us out of our economic turmoil (something along the lines of, we've had four years of a president who thinks government is the road to prosperity, now we need a man who understands that it's business that leads to growth, and here is a man who not only appreciates the value of business, but personally excelled in it). Romney's three main deficits will be his social class (people may harbor feelings of class-based resentment against a presidential candidate born into an economically and politically privileged background), his wishy-washy record on the social and cultural issues that matter so much to important elements of his party's base (due to his career as Governor of Massachusetts), and, sad though this is, his Mormonism (which has often been viewed with suspicion by Christian right-wingers and which polls show is a disincentive for many mainstream voters). These problems are serious, but if the economy is in severe enough difficulty, none will prove insurmountable: Romney's personal background will be irrelevant to average voters if they believe that he is better equipped to rescue them from economic woe than Obama (just look at how the wealthy Roosevelt trounced self-made man Hoover in 1932), his lack of conservative street cred (which would only really hurt him in the Republican primaries, but actually be an asset for the general election) can be fixed with the support of such prominent right-wing pundits as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter (both of whom have already proclaimed their undying love of the man), and his Mormonism - though an undeniable disadvantage under normal political circumstances (and sadly so, since Romney would deserve to lose for his political, not religious, beliefs) - would once again be rendered politically irrelevant in a time of economic desperation.
4) I do not believe the economy will still be struggling by 2012. Although optimism is hardly vogue at this time, the reality is that all signs point to a slow but steady recovery taking place, one that will have the GDP back in a state of growth by the end of the year and will cause a noteworthy rise in wages/drop in unemployment by the middle of 2011. Considering that this will be largely attributable to the effects of Obama's economic stimulus package and the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, it will severely weaken the foundations upon which Romney would have to build political support. This isn't to say that Republicans won't still claim that the economy is in a wreck when 2012 rolls around; since the 1930s it has been a standard practice of both parties to decry the economic policies of their counterparts. That said, in a period of prosperity, Republican denunciations of Obamanomics will not provide the centerpiece of their prospective nominee's appeal, either to his own base (when trying to win the nomination) or to the general public (when trying to get elected). Instead, barring some unforeseen international or domestic crisis, that emphasis will probably rest where it has in many previous elections - on a plethora of cultural and social issues, which use economic and international overtones as a weak cover for the deeper rifts they bring to the fore. In such a political climate, Romney (though still doing well in the primaries) will be damaged by his personal background, wishy-washiness on socio-cultural issues, and Mormonism. Instead the candidate most likely to flourish in such an environment is the one who rose from humble beginnings, served as a pastor for many years, exudes charm and amiability, is a captivating orator, possesses undeniable intelligence, and is as far to the right on social, cultural, and international issues as any candidate offered up by the Republican party in its history (he is equally conservative on economic matters, and although there is a populist streak to his tone when discussing these topics that cause concern among plutocrats, he will no doubt be able to alleviate with a well-timed speech to win them over). That candidate, of course, is none other than former Arkansas Governor Michael Dale Huckabee, and I believe that his adroit skills for grassroots organizing (which are in stark contrast to the ineptitude of Palin's abilities) will help him win the passionate support of the Republican Party's radical right-wing base in a way that no candidate has done since Barry Goldwater in 1964. His only main flaw will be the claim (no doubt made repeatedly by the Romney team) that Huckabee is simply not electable, but unfortunately for supporters of the hapless Michigan native, Huckabee will be able to effectively diffuse those claims by pointing out that his standing against President Obama in polls is roughly equal to that of Romney's. As such, Huckabee will quite likely coast to the top of the Republican ticket in 2012, leaving behind him a base of supporters as enthusiastic as those that propelled Barack Obama to his party's nomination four years earlier.
5) At that point, Huckabee's main concern will be the same one faced by so many other major party presidential candidates - finding a way to compensate for the political liabilites that limit his electability and to broaden his appeal (presumably toward the moderate and independent voters that wind up deciding elections) while not alienating his base. In Huckabee's case, his main political weaknesses will be as follows:
a) The perception that he supports theocratic policies, which turns off moderates and independents.
b) His inexperience both in foreign policy and in dealing with the federal legislature.
c) His sexist comments about women (he once signed a statement in USA Today that declared a woman's obedience to her husband to be as important as her obedience to God).
d) His bigoted comments about Mormons (he has been caught joking that Mormons worship Satan).
e) His insensitive comments about Jews (comparing his massive weight loss on several occasions to experiences in concentration camps, or saying that he looked like a Holocaust survivor).
f) His outspoken hatred of homosexuality (he has referred to same-sex relationships as sinful and evil, blamed them in part for the wave of school shootings in the 1990s, opposes all forms of gay rights, et cetera).
Huckabee won't do squat about his homophobia - the only Americans who will care that deeply about gay rights are Americans who won't be able to win anyway, and standing his ground on hating homosexuals will help keep the enthusiasm of his base. On the other hand, Mormons are a vital Republican voting bloc, but the most obvious way of appealing to them (selecting Romney or some other high profile Mormon as a running mate) could jeopardize his election, considering the genuine prejudice against Mormons in America. As such, Huckabee will probably resolve this problem by offering some form of highly publicized apology for his insensitive remarks, which will no doubt be accepted by the Mormon Church (since it tends to be very conservative in its politics anyway, and will want its supporters to vote for the candidate most amenable to them on the issues). When it comes to his sexist past, Huckabee can probably fix that by putting his wife, Janet Huckabee, front and center in his campaign's image, even as he simultaneously makes up some Ron Paul-esque excuse to distance himself from the words he once endorsed (along the lines of "I never read it when I signed it" or "I signed it as a member of a larger group of ministers and all of us naturally had our signatured affixed to that document"). Despite the transparent falsehood of his excuse, the chances are it will prove effective - conservative women will either not care or overlook this transgression due to their support for him on policy matters, liberal women are once again a voting bloc about which Huckabee cares very little, and moderate/independent women - while they may not entirely accept Huckabee's explanation - will probably want to avoid immersing themselves in the "feminist debate" (which Huckabee will no doubt trying to make this issue about) and instead focus elsewhere.
That leaves three more problems - his inexperience in foreign policy and dealing with Congress, concerns held by independents and moderates about his strong ties with the Christian Right, and his insensitive comments toward Jews. These last three liabilites will, I believe, be addressed by Huckabee in one fell swoop - by selecting Congressman (and House Minority Whip) Eric Cantor of Virginia to be his running mate. Cantor offers seven main assets to a Huckabee ticket:
a) What will by 2012 be more than a decade's service in the House of Representatives, and in positions of great influence as well, thus covering Huckabee's weakness in lacking federal experience;
b) His background as Chairman of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare and service on the House International Relations Committee, which will not only compensate for Huckabee's lack of foreign policy experience but do wonders in bringing to his side the support of foreign policy neo-cons (who up to this point will be only lukewarm in their support of Huckabee);
c) The fact that he is a native Virginian, which means that he will help the Republican Party enormously in that electorally rich swing state;
d) The fact that he is young, intelligent, and articulate, thus contrasting with Huckabee on the first one and further reinforcing his strengths in the latter two;
e) The fact that his Jewishness will not only presumably help Huckabee among Jewish voters (whom the Republican Party has been trying to siphon away from Democrats since the days of George McGovern) but also underscore criticisms of Obama's policies toward Israel;
f) The most important variable of all - his Jewishness will convince moderates and independents (the majority of whom are not Jewish, incidentally) that Huckabee is not a captive to the Christian Right. What's more, while most vice presidential running mates who appeal to moderates and independents only do so by disappointing a presidential candidates base supporters, Cantor's staunch right-wing stances on virtually every major issue will not only enable him to keep his base, but actually further fire up their enthusiasm (especially since the Christian Right, though suspicious of Mormons, is right now very close to Jews due to their shared support of Israel). In short, Cantor's perfection will rest in the fact that he can pull off that rarest of feats - assuaging the political center while being applauded by the hard-liners in his own party.
6) No doubt to keep some attention on the Democratic ticket in the midst of all this, rumors will probably be circulated from Obama staffers (though none will ever be traced back to an identifiable high profile source) that he is considering dropping Joe Biden from the ticket. Those rumors will ultimately prove groundless - barring a situation in which Biden is either a severe liability or in which a potential replacement is viewed as being extremely valuable, the chances are Obama will play it safe and stick with the ticket he already has. Historically speaking dropping vice presidents is a very risky proposition, since it can lead to the perception that you don't have your own house in order (especially if the vice president being dropped doesn't want to go, which will almost certainly be the case with Biden) and because the person with whom you replace your vice president, should he or she backfire, could sink your ticket very quickly. As such, although a case could be made in favor of Obama removing Biden (namely that the main reason for Biden's selection, to address concerns over Obama's inexperience, will no longer be necessary in 2012), it will ultimately prove politically smarter to leave him on the ticket unless there is real fear that Obama will be in danger of imminent defeat (which there won't be) and thus a Hail Mary is deemed necessary (which it won't).
7) In the general election, the Obama-Biden ticket will win by an electoral and popular landslide. There will be three reasons for this:
a) A general public satisfaction (though probably not enthusiasm) for Obama's policies and the state of the union as of 2012;
b) A relatively high personal approval rating for President Obama;
c) The fact that the bulk of independents and moderates will swing ultimately choose him over Huckabee, who will simply be unable (despite his best efforts) to avoid the fate of almost all major party candidates who are nominated by appealing directly to the ideological extremes - the very words and sentiments that made them so popular among the base will turn off everyone else.
As a rule of thumb, I believe that in every presidential election (barring those in which there are prominent third-party candidates), each major party can depend upon receiving the votes of three-eighths (or 37.5%) of the voting public (comprised of each of those party's respective ideological bases). A small fraction (1% to 3%) of the voters will gravitate toward a third-party candidate, while the remaining one-fourth to one-fifth ultimately decides who wins the election. If you look at the six greatest landslides of American political history (those in which the winning candidate receiving at least seven-twelfths, or fifty-eight percent, of the popular votes cast), all of them are distinguished by the fact that the winning candidate picked up virtually every vote that wasn't already committed to his opponent's base, as well as a small fraction of voters who would normally appeal to the other party. Some of them did this solely by dint of their own extraordinary personal popularity (Franklin Roosevelt over Alfred Landon in 1936, Ronald Reagan over Walter Mondale in 1984), others because of the degree to which the voting public disliked and/or feared the opposing candidate (Lyndon Johnson over Barry Goldwater in 1964, Richard Nixon over George McGovern in 1972), and some through a combination of both factors (Warren Harding over James Cox in 1920, Herbert Hoover over Alfred Smith in 1928). Although Obama's current approval rating is somewhat low, it is noteworthy that very little of this has affected his personal approval; most people still like Obama as a human being, but simply disagree with the policies he is pursuing. This works to his advantage because it means whatever damage he has done is not permanent. As such, I believe that by 2012 he will be the beneficiary of general public goodwill, causing him to not only keep his own base but win virtually all of the independents and a few of Huckabee's nominal Republicans. Ultimately, I believe Obama will win 59% of the popular vote to Huckabee's 38%, with 3% being split among various third-party candidates (most likely libertarians). His victory in the electoral college, while decisive, won't be as sweeping; I anticipate that he will pick up all of the states he won in 2008 (including Cantor's Virginia), except for North Carolina and Indiana, and will also add Missouri, Montana, and Arizona to his column, making the final Electoral College tally 362 to 178 (that said, the census will reallocate the distribution of House members in such a way that the actual number will be slightly different from this one).
So there it is: I hereby predict, as of September 4, 2009, that Barack Obama will defeat Michael Huckabee in the presidential election of 2012. May God put sugar on my words in case I have to eat them (and assuming it's not too expensive at the time).
Addendum: Although Huckabee will be the second presidential candidate (and first Republican) to have a Jew as his running mate, I actually think he will perform worse among Jewish voters than any Republican since George H. W. Bush in 1992. At the end of the day, most Jewish voters select candidates based on their liberalism (see the article I wrote on the subject) and, to a lesser extent, their support for Israel. The chances are that not only will Obama win the same 78% who voted for him in 2008, but he will also pick up about half of the Jews who supported McCain that same year; many, though perhaps not pleased with Obama's policies on Israel or economic issues, will be so distrustful of Huckabee that even having a Jewish running mate won't help him. Although this isn't a major point from the perspective of the larger election, I am still satisfied with the probability of Obama joining Franklin Roosevelt (1936, 1940, 1944) and Lyndon Johnson (1964) as one of history's all-time greatest Jewish vote-getters (i.e, any candidate who surpasses 85% of the Jewish vote).
Second Addendum: If the economy is still flailing in 2012, and Mitt Romney is consequently selected to be the Republican presidential nominee, I do not know who he will choose to be his running mate (apart from the fact that he or she will be a candidate pre-approved by the Christian Right), but I can say that he will win. Of course, that is the least of the reasons why Obama must get the economy back on its feet - not only be stimulating a growth in Gross Domestic Product (which is already essentially going on), but by creating jobs and increasing wages. Anything and everything else is unacceptable.
Third Addendum: Remember the name Wayne DuMonde. The Republicans had Willie Horton against Michael Dukakis, and the Democrats will have Wayne DuMonde against Michael Huckabee. You can bet on it.
Quick Rebuttal on Abortion
A couple of my conservative friends have pointed out that, when I use Thomas Jefferson's proclamation of the right all human beings have to life "as endowed by their Creator", that I am implicitly supporting an anti-abortion position. I would like to clarify this misconception right now:
I respect the opinions of those who believe that the unborn are alive, and would never question their right to conduct their personal lives in accordance with that conviction. That said, there isn't any scientific proof that fetuses are "alive"; indeed, from a scientific standpoint, the very definition of what constitutes "life" (apart from the obvious criterion of having emerged successfully from your mother's womb) is sketchy at best. As such, a government that is focused on guaranteeing its citizens as much freedom as is consistent with the preservation of social justice and security must ask itself this question: What policy toward abortion creates the proper balance between the rights of the individual to do as he or she wishes versus the rights of others to be protected from harm?
The answer, as I see it, is to leave the matter of whether to have an abortion to the discretion of each woman who is forced to make that decision. Pregnancy is a matter of profound significance to a woman due not only to the ramifications having a child will have on the course of her entire life (even if she was to put her child up for adoption), but also to the enormous degree to which it will compromise her sovereignty over her physical body. There are few civil libertarians who would disagree that, under normal circumstances, a matter of such a deeply personal magnitude should be left solely in the hands of the individual women who must make that choice; the only reason some have deemed this situation to be an exception to that general rule is because they believe that another human life is involved. Yet the opinions on whether an unborn child is alive are so diverse that they are fundamentally irreconcilable, whereas there is no doubt that a pregnant human woman is alive. As such, the question ultimately boils down to one of balancing the rights of a hypothetical life versus those of a definite life. When put in those terms, the resolution to that conundrum becomes self-evident.
Unlike many of my fellow liberals, I actually have respect for the anti-abortion position; I see most opponents of abortion as being intelligent, decent human beings who believe that pregnancy termination is a moral wrong because it either takes human life or at least deprives potential life of its right to exist. While I disagree with that position, most of the people who hold it do so with a moral logic that warrants respect instead of the undue vilifcation it receives from many of its adversaries. At the same time, you may have also noticed that I have referred to opponents of abortion rights as being "anti-abortions", as opposed to using their preferred self-designation, "pro-life". While normally I would not quibble with the right of an ideological faction to call itself whatever it chooses, I acutely resent the implication that those of us who support a woman's right to choose are "anti-life". Just as pro-choicers need to respect the honorable intentions and intellectual reason of those who are anti-abortion, so too do those who are anti-abortion need to accept that the pro-choice community isn't composed of "anti-life" serial baby killers, but rather of those who have simply come to a different set of conclusions on a profoundly difficult question.
I respect the opinions of those who believe that the unborn are alive, and would never question their right to conduct their personal lives in accordance with that conviction. That said, there isn't any scientific proof that fetuses are "alive"; indeed, from a scientific standpoint, the very definition of what constitutes "life" (apart from the obvious criterion of having emerged successfully from your mother's womb) is sketchy at best. As such, a government that is focused on guaranteeing its citizens as much freedom as is consistent with the preservation of social justice and security must ask itself this question: What policy toward abortion creates the proper balance between the rights of the individual to do as he or she wishes versus the rights of others to be protected from harm?
The answer, as I see it, is to leave the matter of whether to have an abortion to the discretion of each woman who is forced to make that decision. Pregnancy is a matter of profound significance to a woman due not only to the ramifications having a child will have on the course of her entire life (even if she was to put her child up for adoption), but also to the enormous degree to which it will compromise her sovereignty over her physical body. There are few civil libertarians who would disagree that, under normal circumstances, a matter of such a deeply personal magnitude should be left solely in the hands of the individual women who must make that choice; the only reason some have deemed this situation to be an exception to that general rule is because they believe that another human life is involved. Yet the opinions on whether an unborn child is alive are so diverse that they are fundamentally irreconcilable, whereas there is no doubt that a pregnant human woman is alive. As such, the question ultimately boils down to one of balancing the rights of a hypothetical life versus those of a definite life. When put in those terms, the resolution to that conundrum becomes self-evident.
Unlike many of my fellow liberals, I actually have respect for the anti-abortion position; I see most opponents of abortion as being intelligent, decent human beings who believe that pregnancy termination is a moral wrong because it either takes human life or at least deprives potential life of its right to exist. While I disagree with that position, most of the people who hold it do so with a moral logic that warrants respect instead of the undue vilifcation it receives from many of its adversaries. At the same time, you may have also noticed that I have referred to opponents of abortion rights as being "anti-abortions", as opposed to using their preferred self-designation, "pro-life". While normally I would not quibble with the right of an ideological faction to call itself whatever it chooses, I acutely resent the implication that those of us who support a woman's right to choose are "anti-life". Just as pro-choicers need to respect the honorable intentions and intellectual reason of those who are anti-abortion, so too do those who are anti-abortion need to accept that the pro-choice community isn't composed of "anti-life" serial baby killers, but rather of those who have simply come to a different set of conclusions on a profoundly difficult question.
Where I Draw The Line
Today I posted this as my Facebook status:
Enough with the right-wing histrionics! The fact that some conservatives have the gall to accuse Obama of trying to "indoctrinate" our children simply because he taped a bland "work hard and stay in school" message is repugnant. This is not "legitimate disagreement" with the president's policies; this is hate-driven hysteria, and it is sickening.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32673334/ns/politics-white_house/
In light of this comment, as well as the three-part conversation from two days ago, I feel an my approach toward right-wing zealots is due, so here it is:
While I may disagree with conservatives on most issues, I have the utmost respect for all individuals who are willing to make their viewpoints intelligently and logically. One of the primary mistakes made by ideological dogmatists (left-wing as well as right-wing) is that they conclude that their point-of-view is the only one that individuals who are in full possession of a working mind, a decent soul, and all of the pertinent facts could arrive at. I have encountered this approach many times in my life, including during my three years as an undergraduate at Bard College, and have fought diligently against it whenever I could. When I find myself in conversation with a thoughtful, rational man or woman, I pay that human being the respect he or she deserves, regardless of whether she happens to be a liberal or conservative.
My problem with "Bill" (my correspondent in the ironically titled "Conversations with an Informed Citizen" series, posted below this article), the birthers, the death panelists, the Obama-is-a-secret-socialists (I don't know what to dub them), and now the people who claim that Obama is trying to brainwash our children with socialist propaganda by claiming that they should "study hard and stay in school" is that they aren't engaging in legitimate debate; they are spewing outright falsehoods, fueled by their knee-jerk loathing of liberals and, in many cases, of African-Americans.
On what basis do I make this assertion? To me, the barometer that I use to determine if a given individual deserves respect is whether his or her views are based on intellectual and moral conclusions drawn from a plausible factual foundation. When someone uses transparently flawed logic in their intellectual deductions or moral proclamations, I rightfully conclude that they are crippled - be it by flawed mental faculties or deeply ingrained biases - in a way that prevents them from making worthwhile contributions to political discourse. When a person bases his or her conclusions on so-called "facts", or on an interpretation of said "facts", that are either so tenuously substantiated or flagrantly untrue that the only conceivable reason he/she would have for believing them in the first place is that he/she possessed a pre-existing desire to do so, then I deem that individual to be so intoxicated by ideological dogmatism that it is virtually impossible for them to be useful citizens.
So why do I have nothing but abject contempt for the aforementioned groups that I have denounced. It is because:
- Unless you believe that two independent Hawaii newspapers (Honolulu Advertiser and Honolulu Star-Bulletin) were in cahoots with the Hawaii Department of Health in a four-decades long elaborate conspiracy to falsify newspaper birth notices and a United States birth certificate on the off chance that a random child named Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. might someday run for president, there isn't any intelligent basis for asserting that Obama isn't a native-born citizen.
- Unless you believe that liberal congressmen have included a section in the upcoming health care reform legislation that was written in invisible ink (so that the people who read the entire bill on countless websites are unable to find it) which allows them to secretly kill old people (who happen to be one of the Democratic Party's foremost financial contributors, which would make this a monumentally stupid political move for purely monetary reasons) and the disabled, there isn't any intelligent basis for claiming that there are death panels being created.
- Unless you believe that raising tax cuts on the wealthy to Clinton-era levels, trying to guarantee every American his/her god-given right to affordable high quality health care, providing energy companies with financial incentive to lower polluting so that we don't all die from the climatological consequences of global warming, imposing new regulations on Wall Street and big business so that the crippling economic collapse of 2007-2008 (which occurred thanks to the deregulatory policies of Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes) can never happen again (just like similar economic catastrophes didn't occur in the post-New Deal era of 1945 to 1980, when the regulations of Franklin Roosevelt were in place and stringently enforced), fighting to raise wages and protect the jobs of poor and middle-class workers by re-empowering labor unions via the Employee Free Choice Act, and attempting to stop the needless loss of life among America's greatest citizens by trying to get our troops out of the unnecessary war in Iraq... unless you believe all of that constitutes "socialism", there isn't any intelligent basis for claiming that Obama's policies are socialistic.
- Finally, unless you believe that the decades-old cliches that have been been foisted on children since time immemorial - work hard, stay in school, don't do drugs, and leave a polished apple on your teacher's desk - constitute cutting-edge extreme left-wing propaganda, then you lack any intelligent basis for claiming that Obama's back-to-school message is intended to "indoctrinate" or "brainwash" our children.
Of course, I know that the right-wing extremists who read the aforementioned comments will never be persuaded by me. No matter what evidence you marshall that invalidates the basis for their assertions, no matter how many faults you find in the coherence and soundness of their thinking, no matter how persuasively you demonstrate that their convictions are born not of impartial observation and logical extrapolation but rather of pre-existing emotionally-based ideological prejudices (to say nothing of sheer bigotry), they will always walk away believing that they're absolutely right. The willful indifference toward the vital distinction between fact and fiction makes the points-of-view held by these individuals utterly valueless to such an extent that it not only invalidates what they have to say about the specific topics being discussed, but even taints the tenability of their assertions on virtually every other political subject. What's more, the eagerness with which they allow their judgment to be corrupted by what they WANT to believe is true rather than by what actually IS true (or isn't true) deprives them of the intellectual and moral integrity one needs when engaging in potentially fruitful political discussion.
Anyone who is nice to you deserves reciprocation; this is a moral axiom that I have at times forgotten when my better instincts have been overwhelmed by indignation. That said, while nice zealots deserve to be treated nicely, zealots of any stripe - from the die-hard militant leftists at Bard who harassed innocent denizens of a small New York hamlet after Bush's re-election to the right-wing extremists who are now injecting a disturbing rhetorical violence into our national debate - should never receive anything remotely resembling respect, no matter how nice and polite they happen to be. When people like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, Monica Crowley, Sean Hannity, and State Senator Steve Russell surrender their better selves to these base impulses - when they, as President Eisenhower so eloquently put it, voluntarily relinquish their "freedom from the necessity of informing themselves" - then treating them with respect is tantamount to endorsing their degradation of the intelligent public discourse which is democracy's lifeblood.
Enough with the right-wing histrionics! The fact that some conservatives have the gall to accuse Obama of trying to "indoctrinate" our children simply because he taped a bland "work hard and stay in school" message is repugnant. This is not "legitimate disagreement" with the president's policies; this is hate-driven hysteria, and it is sickening.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32673334/ns/politics-white_house/
In light of this comment, as well as the three-part conversation from two days ago, I feel an my approach toward right-wing zealots is due, so here it is:
While I may disagree with conservatives on most issues, I have the utmost respect for all individuals who are willing to make their viewpoints intelligently and logically. One of the primary mistakes made by ideological dogmatists (left-wing as well as right-wing) is that they conclude that their point-of-view is the only one that individuals who are in full possession of a working mind, a decent soul, and all of the pertinent facts could arrive at. I have encountered this approach many times in my life, including during my three years as an undergraduate at Bard College, and have fought diligently against it whenever I could. When I find myself in conversation with a thoughtful, rational man or woman, I pay that human being the respect he or she deserves, regardless of whether she happens to be a liberal or conservative.
My problem with "Bill" (my correspondent in the ironically titled "Conversations with an Informed Citizen" series, posted below this article), the birthers, the death panelists, the Obama-is-a-secret-socialists (I don't know what to dub them), and now the people who claim that Obama is trying to brainwash our children with socialist propaganda by claiming that they should "study hard and stay in school" is that they aren't engaging in legitimate debate; they are spewing outright falsehoods, fueled by their knee-jerk loathing of liberals and, in many cases, of African-Americans.
On what basis do I make this assertion? To me, the barometer that I use to determine if a given individual deserves respect is whether his or her views are based on intellectual and moral conclusions drawn from a plausible factual foundation. When someone uses transparently flawed logic in their intellectual deductions or moral proclamations, I rightfully conclude that they are crippled - be it by flawed mental faculties or deeply ingrained biases - in a way that prevents them from making worthwhile contributions to political discourse. When a person bases his or her conclusions on so-called "facts", or on an interpretation of said "facts", that are either so tenuously substantiated or flagrantly untrue that the only conceivable reason he/she would have for believing them in the first place is that he/she possessed a pre-existing desire to do so, then I deem that individual to be so intoxicated by ideological dogmatism that it is virtually impossible for them to be useful citizens.
So why do I have nothing but abject contempt for the aforementioned groups that I have denounced. It is because:
- Unless you believe that two independent Hawaii newspapers (Honolulu Advertiser and Honolulu Star-Bulletin) were in cahoots with the Hawaii Department of Health in a four-decades long elaborate conspiracy to falsify newspaper birth notices and a United States birth certificate on the off chance that a random child named Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. might someday run for president, there isn't any intelligent basis for asserting that Obama isn't a native-born citizen.
- Unless you believe that liberal congressmen have included a section in the upcoming health care reform legislation that was written in invisible ink (so that the people who read the entire bill on countless websites are unable to find it) which allows them to secretly kill old people (who happen to be one of the Democratic Party's foremost financial contributors, which would make this a monumentally stupid political move for purely monetary reasons) and the disabled, there isn't any intelligent basis for claiming that there are death panels being created.
- Unless you believe that raising tax cuts on the wealthy to Clinton-era levels, trying to guarantee every American his/her god-given right to affordable high quality health care, providing energy companies with financial incentive to lower polluting so that we don't all die from the climatological consequences of global warming, imposing new regulations on Wall Street and big business so that the crippling economic collapse of 2007-2008 (which occurred thanks to the deregulatory policies of Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes) can never happen again (just like similar economic catastrophes didn't occur in the post-New Deal era of 1945 to 1980, when the regulations of Franklin Roosevelt were in place and stringently enforced), fighting to raise wages and protect the jobs of poor and middle-class workers by re-empowering labor unions via the Employee Free Choice Act, and attempting to stop the needless loss of life among America's greatest citizens by trying to get our troops out of the unnecessary war in Iraq... unless you believe all of that constitutes "socialism", there isn't any intelligent basis for claiming that Obama's policies are socialistic.
- Finally, unless you believe that the decades-old cliches that have been been foisted on children since time immemorial - work hard, stay in school, don't do drugs, and leave a polished apple on your teacher's desk - constitute cutting-edge extreme left-wing propaganda, then you lack any intelligent basis for claiming that Obama's back-to-school message is intended to "indoctrinate" or "brainwash" our children.
Of course, I know that the right-wing extremists who read the aforementioned comments will never be persuaded by me. No matter what evidence you marshall that invalidates the basis for their assertions, no matter how many faults you find in the coherence and soundness of their thinking, no matter how persuasively you demonstrate that their convictions are born not of impartial observation and logical extrapolation but rather of pre-existing emotionally-based ideological prejudices (to say nothing of sheer bigotry), they will always walk away believing that they're absolutely right. The willful indifference toward the vital distinction between fact and fiction makes the points-of-view held by these individuals utterly valueless to such an extent that it not only invalidates what they have to say about the specific topics being discussed, but even taints the tenability of their assertions on virtually every other political subject. What's more, the eagerness with which they allow their judgment to be corrupted by what they WANT to believe is true rather than by what actually IS true (or isn't true) deprives them of the intellectual and moral integrity one needs when engaging in potentially fruitful political discussion.
Anyone who is nice to you deserves reciprocation; this is a moral axiom that I have at times forgotten when my better instincts have been overwhelmed by indignation. That said, while nice zealots deserve to be treated nicely, zealots of any stripe - from the die-hard militant leftists at Bard who harassed innocent denizens of a small New York hamlet after Bush's re-election to the right-wing extremists who are now injecting a disturbing rhetorical violence into our national debate - should never receive anything remotely resembling respect, no matter how nice and polite they happen to be. When people like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, Monica Crowley, Sean Hannity, and State Senator Steve Russell surrender their better selves to these base impulses - when they, as President Eisenhower so eloquently put it, voluntarily relinquish their "freedom from the necessity of informing themselves" - then treating them with respect is tantamount to endorsing their degradation of the intelligent public discourse which is democracy's lifeblood.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Conversation with an Informed Citizen - Part Three
The final (and surprisingly short) installment in this trilogy:
Bob:
i read half your email, dude. im not gonna keep this going with you, you cant go two emails without pulling out offensive and overused names to describe me and anyone else who thinks differently from you. i dont have time for belittlement. its people like you who fuck this stuff up, because in your own mind you have all the answers already. nice talking to you
Me:
I won't deny that my letter was insulting, but I must protest when you say that I "pulled out offensive and overused names" to describe you. In actuality, I can't think of one time when I called you a name, although I do find plenty of examples of me taking your assertions, identifying their flaws, and pointing them out to you in a manner that identified their ridiculousness and/or moral bankruptcy. You, on the other hand, referred to Obama (and by inference those who support his policies) as a "socialist/communist"; if anything, I could have ended this debate in a tiff on the grounds that YOU were guilty of name-calling.
As for the fact that my letter was insulting - sorry to say it, but you brought this on yourself. It is one thing to look at a set of facts and, using logical methodologies, come to a different point-of-view than your neighbor; people who do that are indeed entitled to respect, for regardless of whether I agree or disagree with their opinions, they have come to them in an intellectually honest and sound manner. On the other hand, people who claim that falsehoods are facts, and then proceed to base their arguments on the fiction, do America a terrible disservice. No good is done by having truth and lies occupy the same rhetoric ground, and forcing them to compete with each other for survival; the lies will always have an unfair edge, for they can mutate in form and substance any time they want and perform all sorts of nifty sneak attacks that truth - which by its very nature pursues an honorable course - cannot. Truth will then inevitably be taken advantage of, to the detriment of both itself and its natural corollary, justice. We are likely to see this happen with health care reform, as there are signs that President Obama is planning to drop the public option from consideration, and as history has shown, it happens on countless other occasions with endless issues.
When all is said and done, you are guilty of promoting ignorance (of truth), irrationality (in interpreting said truth), intolerance (toward the economically disadvantaged), and injustice (once again toward the economically disadvantaged). I am guilty of insulting you for these things. Frankly, we aren't anywhere close to even in our transgressions.
I have to thank my close friend Brian Davis for pointing out that (and these are his exact words) "Being nice doesn't excuse beliefs that are morally devoid. Being nice DOES, however, deserve reciprocation." He was right, and I decided that I needed to mend fences, so I wrote this to Bob:
Upon further reflection, I realize that I was indeed very condescending in my responses. While I still stand by everything I said, the way in which I said it was belittling, and undeserved. For this I am sorry.
Bob:
i read half your email, dude. im not gonna keep this going with you, you cant go two emails without pulling out offensive and overused names to describe me and anyone else who thinks differently from you. i dont have time for belittlement. its people like you who fuck this stuff up, because in your own mind you have all the answers already. nice talking to you
Me:
I won't deny that my letter was insulting, but I must protest when you say that I "pulled out offensive and overused names" to describe you. In actuality, I can't think of one time when I called you a name, although I do find plenty of examples of me taking your assertions, identifying their flaws, and pointing them out to you in a manner that identified their ridiculousness and/or moral bankruptcy. You, on the other hand, referred to Obama (and by inference those who support his policies) as a "socialist/communist"; if anything, I could have ended this debate in a tiff on the grounds that YOU were guilty of name-calling.
As for the fact that my letter was insulting - sorry to say it, but you brought this on yourself. It is one thing to look at a set of facts and, using logical methodologies, come to a different point-of-view than your neighbor; people who do that are indeed entitled to respect, for regardless of whether I agree or disagree with their opinions, they have come to them in an intellectually honest and sound manner. On the other hand, people who claim that falsehoods are facts, and then proceed to base their arguments on the fiction, do America a terrible disservice. No good is done by having truth and lies occupy the same rhetoric ground, and forcing them to compete with each other for survival; the lies will always have an unfair edge, for they can mutate in form and substance any time they want and perform all sorts of nifty sneak attacks that truth - which by its very nature pursues an honorable course - cannot. Truth will then inevitably be taken advantage of, to the detriment of both itself and its natural corollary, justice. We are likely to see this happen with health care reform, as there are signs that President Obama is planning to drop the public option from consideration, and as history has shown, it happens on countless other occasions with endless issues.
When all is said and done, you are guilty of promoting ignorance (of truth), irrationality (in interpreting said truth), intolerance (toward the economically disadvantaged), and injustice (once again toward the economically disadvantaged). I am guilty of insulting you for these things. Frankly, we aren't anywhere close to even in our transgressions.
I have to thank my close friend Brian Davis for pointing out that (and these are his exact words) "Being nice doesn't excuse beliefs that are morally devoid. Being nice DOES, however, deserve reciprocation." He was right, and I decided that I needed to mend fences, so I wrote this to Bob:
Upon further reflection, I realize that I was indeed very condescending in my responses. While I still stand by everything I said, the way in which I said it was belittling, and undeserved. For this I am sorry.
Conversation with an Informed Citizen - Part Two
The dialogue continues with a response from Bob:
just a few short points to respond for now. im at work.
1. the people at the town halls are concerned citizens, not paid by pharms or insurance co's. some may be ignorant, but how can they be confident in a congress who hasnt read the bill/ explained it to its constituency? on the other hand, unions bus their members to town halls more or less to stifle the every day joes who show up on their own time. i think astroturfing is the term. watch some of these town halls on C-span if you dont believe me. shits boring, but they go to these meetings on their own time becuase they want answers.
2. there was (maybe is still) a death panal. at first it was denied, then obama stated it would be removed. how could it be removed if it didnt exist. oregon already has a death with dignity provision where it will pay for suicide meds instead of aiding those with serious illnesses without insurance to get the meds they need to live....a death panal.
3. about 30 million (and this number could be higher) uninsured could purchase their own insurace, but choose to spend their money on other things. americans need to become responsible again. those on the poverty line already qualify for govt programs and dont pay a dime. this leaves 5-10 million who really need reform, just in my opinion not a govt run option.
5. whats to stop the govt from setting the costs so low that private insurers cannot compete? nothing, obviously. and in pre president interviews obama said this is specifically what he wanted to do. if it takes even 10-15 years, weed out the private insurers until the govt option is the only one left. im not making this stuff up btw, i swear.
6. you say nothing of tort reform. why do lawyers get off with no govt intervention? they drive docs to perfom defensive tests so they wont be sued on liability which forces rates to sky rocket, putting the cost on insurance companies, but mostly on the patient.
7. lastly, your last thought is great, but govt programs in this day and age fail miserably. regulations need to be made to drive costs down period. medicare is bankrupt, so is social security, and medicade. why make another system for the govt to screw up? there are other answersthis wasnt so short... btw i think obama is a socialist/communist.
From Me:
Here is my rebuttal. I won't pretend that it'll be short (after all, I am Matthew Rozsa), but I can promise you that I will count correctly, a courtesy I hope you pay me in your next letter.
1) I didn't say that all of the people at the town halls were paid lackeys for pharmaceutical and insurance companies, only that some of them were, and the evidence that many of those individuals are in fact "astroturfers" is irrefutable. Known right-wing organizations (such as FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity) that exist for the sole purpose of storming government gatherings in order to make a disruption and intimidate public figures for the benefit of the clients who pay them (such as those who harassed government officials conducting the Florida recount effort in 2000) have been shipping their employees to various town hall meetings throughout the country. Of course, they need money to subsidize these efforts, and who has been providing it? In the case of Florida recount of 2000, it was the Republican Party of America that was paying them; in the case of the health care reform debate of 2009, it is the insurance and pharmaceutical companies that are using their assistance. This is not my opinion, by the way. This is a proven fact. And once again, it does not apply to everyone who is there, only some - I do not deny that there are quite genuine racists, conservative extremists, and misinformed average joes rubbing shoulders with the fake ones who have been astroturfed in.
2) When you say that union members have been astroturfing, you apparently don't understand what the term actually means. Grassroots protests refer to any group of citizens, previously organized or otherwise, that has a genuine commitment to a certain cause and is willing to openly admit who they are, how they got to the protest (either as individuals or as an organized group), and why they have taken the position for which they argue. Astroturfing (a term coined by Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas) refers very specifically to protesters who pretend they are protesting for one reason when in fact they are protesting for another. For example, there is nothing wrong with people who are being paid by right-wing disruption groups (that are in turn being paid by insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies) to show up and oppose health care reform IF THEY OPENLY ADMIT WHO THEY ARE AND WHY THEY'RE THERE; it becomes astroturfing, instead of legitimate grassroots protesting, when they conceal their identities from the public and try to pass themselves off as common citizens with an impartial interest in this issue, thereby creating the illusion that they represent a genuine public uprising. That is what these right-wing lackeys have been doing, and it is dishonest. On the other hand, I find it ridiculous that you claim that union members are astroturfers, since they organize on their own time and openly acknowledge who they are (union members) and why they are there (because they, as members of a labor union, believe that health care reform is in best for them personally and the country as a whole). They aren't deceiving anyone, unlike the lackeys of medicine's big business community.
3) I also think it's amazing that you refer to labor unions as being the enemy and their opponents as "everyday joes". Just what exactly do you think labor unions are? Let us turn to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary for the answer:
labor union, noun: an organization of workers formed for the purpose of advancing its members' interests in respect to wages, benefits, and working conditions
Considering that, apart from the infintesimal fraction of Americans who are either obscenely wealthy business owners or work independently, the overwhelming majority of us are workers (i.e, we receive our money from someone else who pays us), it stands to reason that labor unions represent the very "average joes" whose interests you presumably have at heart. It is true that not all Americans are in labor unions today, since President Reagan did wonders at decimating their power in order to help the oligarchy of big businessmen who underwrote his campaigns increase their profit margins. Even so, labor unions exist for the sole purpose of helping workers, so that even those of us who aren't in a labor union still benefit by the positions they articulate (unless, of course, you are a rich person who cares nothing about anyone other than yourself and other people in your own class).
4) People keep saying that their congressmen/women haven't read the bill and can't explain it to their constituencies. Based on the C-Span sessions I've been watching, these legislators HAVE read the bills, and try their damndest to explain them to their constituencies when asked, even quoting section and verse from the bill while the people who challenge them are unable (or unwilling) to do likewise. The only reason they have not been clearer is because right-wingers keep trying to shout them down before they can say anything; to argue that this is their fault would be a bit like saying "Matt, you're not even trying to go grocery shopping, because the last two times you went, you got mugged and had to be taken to the hospital before you could arrive there."
5) There never was a death panel. What did exist was a clause that stated that people with terminal conditions who didn't want treatment could ask their doctors questions about the other options available to them and have the government pay for it; when Obama saw the mounting, thoughtless, and hysterical pressure opposed to this clause, he took it out himself because he figured including it would involve more trouble than it was worth. Incidentally, people with terminal conditions who don't want treatment ALREADY CAN ask their doctors question about the other options available to them; the only difference is that as of right now, they'll have to pay for it themselves (which means poor people who don't want, say, a fifth degrading and painful surgery for an inoperable brain tumor, won't have any idea what other options are available to them, since they don't have the money to ask for their doctor about alternative to medical treatment). Right-wingers who - either because of stupidity, ideological dogmatism, or the fact that they were in the pocket of big business - intentionally lied about this clause and said that it would give the government the right to decide who would live and who would die in certain medical situations, or that they might encourage the elderly, sick, and disabled to refuse medical treatment. This is a blatant distortion, and shows that people who argue this haven't actually taken the time to read the bill.
6) Your third point shows just how truly out-of-touch you are with the real world (it could also be that you're rich and don't give a damn about anyone besides yourself and your immediate social circle, but I will pay you the courtesy of assuming the best of your character). First, as for the unemployed: They often don't receive health coverage as part of their unemployment package, and when they do, it is intentionally incomplete and inadequate, in large part because there is no government-run public option they can turn to. So why don't they just use their unemployment money to buy insurance on their own? Well, unemployment pays you $405 dollars a week in most states, which puts private insurance well out of their hands. And what about the employed? Well, the truth is that private health insurance is extraordinarily expensive even when it's at its lowest possible quality (forget about those that offer premium coverage), and an American who works a minimum wage job often cannot afford such coverage, regardless of how much he or she skrimps and saves. Don't believe me? Still think that people who work hard and don't spend their money on "other things" (and I assume you mean things they don't need, since I can't imagine you're criticizing them for spending money on necessities) can afford insurace if they really try? Well let's do some basic math. The minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. Figure out how much money you will earn working at that level for forty hours a week (or heck, why not make it sixty hours a week), and then subtract from that amount that which is required for food, clothing, shelter, utilities such as electricity and running water, transportation to your place of employment, and the needs of your spouse and children, should you have them (and I hope you will give your hypothetical doppelganger a wife and child, since I doubt you would want to be completely alone in this dreary existence; remember what they say misery loves...). If you want you can toss in a telephone, computer, internet access, and television, since it's pretty hard to get by in the modern world without them, but as they aren't "life necessities" so much as "ability to function in the 21st Century necessities", I'll let you have a pass on including them. Anyway, after all of those expenses have been taken out, see if you still have enough money to afford health insurance for yourself and your loved ones. Now let's bear in mind that, thanks to the deregulatory policies of Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes, the avarice of big banks and brokerage firms caused an economic collapse last year, so that 9% of all Americans are incapable of finding work and an additional 10% are only able to find part-time hours, which means more than one-out-of-six Americans are doing even worse than you would be in the hypothetical situation I just described. Well why don't they just get a new job? Because big business, which runs the economy, isn't creating new jobs right now. Why not cast out on their own and form their own small business or whatnot? With what money and resources - banks aren't offering loans, and these people have nothing of their own to use. Well why don't they just demand higher pay and longer hours? Well that would require them to form unions, and if they do that then, according to you, they won't be "average joes" anymore, and nobody wants that.
7) Your fourth point intrigues me. Essentially you are saying that you want people to have a choice, but are worried that they might decide that having affordable, high-quality health care for themselves and their families is more important than the warm fuzzy feeling they'll get by remaining loyal to a faceless corporate entity. Up until then you act like you are primarily concerned with the public welfare, but that argument - even if I were to agree with it - clearly puts the public interest behind that of insurance companies. Why exactly would it be a problem if the government allowed everyone to have great health care by insurance companies were run out of business? That notion doesn't really cause me to lose any sleep, because I don't give a damn about the profit margins of insurance companies; I only care about whether every American has the right "endowed to him by his creator" to "life", as promised in the American dream. On the other hand, that notion is indeed terrifying if you don't give a damn about seeing every that the American dream is available to all of it citizen, but are very much concerned about the profit margins of insurance companies. That said, you needn't worry your little mind about insurance companies being run out of business even if the public option is put in place, since capitalism will no doubt come and save the day. Don't you remember the most basic capitalist principle? You know, about the free market? Let me refresh you on how it applies to this situation: If insurance companies worry that people will use government-run insurance because it is just as good as theirs (but cheaper), then in order to compete they will:
a) Lower their prices and improve their service, thus benefiting the American people while enabling them to stay in business (although possibly making the corporate executives slightly less obscenely wealthy).
b) Lower their prices and improve their service, thus benefiting the American people while enabling them to stay in business (although possibly making the corporate executives slightly less obscenely wealthy).
c) Lower their prices and improve their service, thus benefiting the American people while enabling them to stay in business (although possibly making the corporate executives slightly less obscenely wealthy).
d) Commit mass suicide, with their maggot-filled carcasses littering every street in America and causing millions of people to turn to cannibalism (since they can't afford food anymore thanks to the long-term consequences of Reaganomics), which will in turn kill them (because the meat of these executives was tainted with poisons, and no one picked up on it thanks to the government's weakening of the FDA) and turn them into flesh-eating zombies, who will in turn eat the rest of the country (which will be defenseless because Bush sent most of our military to Afghanistan and Iraq) and then use a nuclear weapon (which they will get a hold of because Reagan's "zero sum" Cold War strategy prompted the USSR to make a surplus of them, which they lost track of after the empire collapsed and which could now be anywhere) to blow up Japan (no reason why they'd choose Japan, just guessing here), which means no more good anime for anyone, pissing off nerds the world over.
Remember, there is no stupid answer. Only stupid people.
8) Why no tort reform? How about because lawyers aren't the cause of this problem? The reason people have to spend too much on medical care (and it's interesting that you suddenly acknowledge this problem in your sixth point, since you all-but-deny it in your third) is because insurance companies have a monopoly on how people receive medical treatment; they know that no matter how much they charge you, you'll have to pay it, because you have no where else to turn if you don't. It's called price gouging, another basic principle of morally bankrupt economics. So why do people complain about lawyers in the first place? Well, when a lawyer sues a doctor for malpractice, the doctor isn't usually the one who pays out - it's either the big business that owns the hospital or the insurance company. Now why would they oppose this? Oh, wait, I forgot... it's because they have a deep maternal love for average joes everywhere, and not because they're greedy.
9) Government programs fail miserably? Then I'm assuming you won't have any problem if I deny you use of the police, firefighters, building inspectors, an army, libraries, museums, and the clearly-worthless high school diploma you got from Easton Area High School. Oh, and people actually DO like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which is why so many people use them and why any politician who tries to get rid of them loses a shitload of votes; they are underfunded, and going bankrupt, because presidents like Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes kept slashing funds for and/or trying to privatize them, while diverting more money into tax cuts for the rich and imperialist wars abroad. Oh, and military health care has been widely acknowledged to be among the best in the world - and that is provided by whom?
10) Sigh. So you think Obama is a socialist/communist. First, you need to pick one. They're not the same thing, and I really don't feel like explaining BOTH of them to you and then proving that Obama is neither. As such, I have a proposal - you look up what each of those terms means, get back to me with what you find, and then show me exactly how Obama's policies fit either of those descriptions. I'm sure I'll have a blast reading it.
INTERESTED IN PART THREE OF THIS TRILOGY? CHECK OUT THE FINAL LINK:
http://riskinghemlock.blogspot.com/2009/09/conversation-with-informed-citizen-part_02.html
just a few short points to respond for now. im at work.
1. the people at the town halls are concerned citizens, not paid by pharms or insurance co's. some may be ignorant, but how can they be confident in a congress who hasnt read the bill/ explained it to its constituency? on the other hand, unions bus their members to town halls more or less to stifle the every day joes who show up on their own time. i think astroturfing is the term. watch some of these town halls on C-span if you dont believe me. shits boring, but they go to these meetings on their own time becuase they want answers.
2. there was (maybe is still) a death panal. at first it was denied, then obama stated it would be removed. how could it be removed if it didnt exist. oregon already has a death with dignity provision where it will pay for suicide meds instead of aiding those with serious illnesses without insurance to get the meds they need to live....a death panal.
3. about 30 million (and this number could be higher) uninsured could purchase their own insurace, but choose to spend their money on other things. americans need to become responsible again. those on the poverty line already qualify for govt programs and dont pay a dime. this leaves 5-10 million who really need reform, just in my opinion not a govt run option.
5. whats to stop the govt from setting the costs so low that private insurers cannot compete? nothing, obviously. and in pre president interviews obama said this is specifically what he wanted to do. if it takes even 10-15 years, weed out the private insurers until the govt option is the only one left. im not making this stuff up btw, i swear.
6. you say nothing of tort reform. why do lawyers get off with no govt intervention? they drive docs to perfom defensive tests so they wont be sued on liability which forces rates to sky rocket, putting the cost on insurance companies, but mostly on the patient.
7. lastly, your last thought is great, but govt programs in this day and age fail miserably. regulations need to be made to drive costs down period. medicare is bankrupt, so is social security, and medicade. why make another system for the govt to screw up? there are other answersthis wasnt so short... btw i think obama is a socialist/communist.
From Me:
Here is my rebuttal. I won't pretend that it'll be short (after all, I am Matthew Rozsa), but I can promise you that I will count correctly, a courtesy I hope you pay me in your next letter.
1) I didn't say that all of the people at the town halls were paid lackeys for pharmaceutical and insurance companies, only that some of them were, and the evidence that many of those individuals are in fact "astroturfers" is irrefutable. Known right-wing organizations (such as FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity) that exist for the sole purpose of storming government gatherings in order to make a disruption and intimidate public figures for the benefit of the clients who pay them (such as those who harassed government officials conducting the Florida recount effort in 2000) have been shipping their employees to various town hall meetings throughout the country. Of course, they need money to subsidize these efforts, and who has been providing it? In the case of Florida recount of 2000, it was the Republican Party of America that was paying them; in the case of the health care reform debate of 2009, it is the insurance and pharmaceutical companies that are using their assistance. This is not my opinion, by the way. This is a proven fact. And once again, it does not apply to everyone who is there, only some - I do not deny that there are quite genuine racists, conservative extremists, and misinformed average joes rubbing shoulders with the fake ones who have been astroturfed in.
2) When you say that union members have been astroturfing, you apparently don't understand what the term actually means. Grassroots protests refer to any group of citizens, previously organized or otherwise, that has a genuine commitment to a certain cause and is willing to openly admit who they are, how they got to the protest (either as individuals or as an organized group), and why they have taken the position for which they argue. Astroturfing (a term coined by Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas) refers very specifically to protesters who pretend they are protesting for one reason when in fact they are protesting for another. For example, there is nothing wrong with people who are being paid by right-wing disruption groups (that are in turn being paid by insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies) to show up and oppose health care reform IF THEY OPENLY ADMIT WHO THEY ARE AND WHY THEY'RE THERE; it becomes astroturfing, instead of legitimate grassroots protesting, when they conceal their identities from the public and try to pass themselves off as common citizens with an impartial interest in this issue, thereby creating the illusion that they represent a genuine public uprising. That is what these right-wing lackeys have been doing, and it is dishonest. On the other hand, I find it ridiculous that you claim that union members are astroturfers, since they organize on their own time and openly acknowledge who they are (union members) and why they are there (because they, as members of a labor union, believe that health care reform is in best for them personally and the country as a whole). They aren't deceiving anyone, unlike the lackeys of medicine's big business community.
3) I also think it's amazing that you refer to labor unions as being the enemy and their opponents as "everyday joes". Just what exactly do you think labor unions are? Let us turn to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary for the answer:
labor union, noun: an organization of workers formed for the purpose of advancing its members' interests in respect to wages, benefits, and working conditions
Considering that, apart from the infintesimal fraction of Americans who are either obscenely wealthy business owners or work independently, the overwhelming majority of us are workers (i.e, we receive our money from someone else who pays us), it stands to reason that labor unions represent the very "average joes" whose interests you presumably have at heart. It is true that not all Americans are in labor unions today, since President Reagan did wonders at decimating their power in order to help the oligarchy of big businessmen who underwrote his campaigns increase their profit margins. Even so, labor unions exist for the sole purpose of helping workers, so that even those of us who aren't in a labor union still benefit by the positions they articulate (unless, of course, you are a rich person who cares nothing about anyone other than yourself and other people in your own class).
4) People keep saying that their congressmen/women haven't read the bill and can't explain it to their constituencies. Based on the C-Span sessions I've been watching, these legislators HAVE read the bills, and try their damndest to explain them to their constituencies when asked, even quoting section and verse from the bill while the people who challenge them are unable (or unwilling) to do likewise. The only reason they have not been clearer is because right-wingers keep trying to shout them down before they can say anything; to argue that this is their fault would be a bit like saying "Matt, you're not even trying to go grocery shopping, because the last two times you went, you got mugged and had to be taken to the hospital before you could arrive there."
5) There never was a death panel. What did exist was a clause that stated that people with terminal conditions who didn't want treatment could ask their doctors questions about the other options available to them and have the government pay for it; when Obama saw the mounting, thoughtless, and hysterical pressure opposed to this clause, he took it out himself because he figured including it would involve more trouble than it was worth. Incidentally, people with terminal conditions who don't want treatment ALREADY CAN ask their doctors question about the other options available to them; the only difference is that as of right now, they'll have to pay for it themselves (which means poor people who don't want, say, a fifth degrading and painful surgery for an inoperable brain tumor, won't have any idea what other options are available to them, since they don't have the money to ask for their doctor about alternative to medical treatment). Right-wingers who - either because of stupidity, ideological dogmatism, or the fact that they were in the pocket of big business - intentionally lied about this clause and said that it would give the government the right to decide who would live and who would die in certain medical situations, or that they might encourage the elderly, sick, and disabled to refuse medical treatment. This is a blatant distortion, and shows that people who argue this haven't actually taken the time to read the bill.
6) Your third point shows just how truly out-of-touch you are with the real world (it could also be that you're rich and don't give a damn about anyone besides yourself and your immediate social circle, but I will pay you the courtesy of assuming the best of your character). First, as for the unemployed: They often don't receive health coverage as part of their unemployment package, and when they do, it is intentionally incomplete and inadequate, in large part because there is no government-run public option they can turn to. So why don't they just use their unemployment money to buy insurance on their own? Well, unemployment pays you $405 dollars a week in most states, which puts private insurance well out of their hands. And what about the employed? Well, the truth is that private health insurance is extraordinarily expensive even when it's at its lowest possible quality (forget about those that offer premium coverage), and an American who works a minimum wage job often cannot afford such coverage, regardless of how much he or she skrimps and saves. Don't believe me? Still think that people who work hard and don't spend their money on "other things" (and I assume you mean things they don't need, since I can't imagine you're criticizing them for spending money on necessities) can afford insurace if they really try? Well let's do some basic math. The minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. Figure out how much money you will earn working at that level for forty hours a week (or heck, why not make it sixty hours a week), and then subtract from that amount that which is required for food, clothing, shelter, utilities such as electricity and running water, transportation to your place of employment, and the needs of your spouse and children, should you have them (and I hope you will give your hypothetical doppelganger a wife and child, since I doubt you would want to be completely alone in this dreary existence; remember what they say misery loves...). If you want you can toss in a telephone, computer, internet access, and television, since it's pretty hard to get by in the modern world without them, but as they aren't "life necessities" so much as "ability to function in the 21st Century necessities", I'll let you have a pass on including them. Anyway, after all of those expenses have been taken out, see if you still have enough money to afford health insurance for yourself and your loved ones. Now let's bear in mind that, thanks to the deregulatory policies of Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes, the avarice of big banks and brokerage firms caused an economic collapse last year, so that 9% of all Americans are incapable of finding work and an additional 10% are only able to find part-time hours, which means more than one-out-of-six Americans are doing even worse than you would be in the hypothetical situation I just described. Well why don't they just get a new job? Because big business, which runs the economy, isn't creating new jobs right now. Why not cast out on their own and form their own small business or whatnot? With what money and resources - banks aren't offering loans, and these people have nothing of their own to use. Well why don't they just demand higher pay and longer hours? Well that would require them to form unions, and if they do that then, according to you, they won't be "average joes" anymore, and nobody wants that.
7) Your fourth point intrigues me. Essentially you are saying that you want people to have a choice, but are worried that they might decide that having affordable, high-quality health care for themselves and their families is more important than the warm fuzzy feeling they'll get by remaining loyal to a faceless corporate entity. Up until then you act like you are primarily concerned with the public welfare, but that argument - even if I were to agree with it - clearly puts the public interest behind that of insurance companies. Why exactly would it be a problem if the government allowed everyone to have great health care by insurance companies were run out of business? That notion doesn't really cause me to lose any sleep, because I don't give a damn about the profit margins of insurance companies; I only care about whether every American has the right "endowed to him by his creator" to "life", as promised in the American dream. On the other hand, that notion is indeed terrifying if you don't give a damn about seeing every that the American dream is available to all of it citizen, but are very much concerned about the profit margins of insurance companies. That said, you needn't worry your little mind about insurance companies being run out of business even if the public option is put in place, since capitalism will no doubt come and save the day. Don't you remember the most basic capitalist principle? You know, about the free market? Let me refresh you on how it applies to this situation: If insurance companies worry that people will use government-run insurance because it is just as good as theirs (but cheaper), then in order to compete they will:
a) Lower their prices and improve their service, thus benefiting the American people while enabling them to stay in business (although possibly making the corporate executives slightly less obscenely wealthy).
b) Lower their prices and improve their service, thus benefiting the American people while enabling them to stay in business (although possibly making the corporate executives slightly less obscenely wealthy).
c) Lower their prices and improve their service, thus benefiting the American people while enabling them to stay in business (although possibly making the corporate executives slightly less obscenely wealthy).
d) Commit mass suicide, with their maggot-filled carcasses littering every street in America and causing millions of people to turn to cannibalism (since they can't afford food anymore thanks to the long-term consequences of Reaganomics), which will in turn kill them (because the meat of these executives was tainted with poisons, and no one picked up on it thanks to the government's weakening of the FDA) and turn them into flesh-eating zombies, who will in turn eat the rest of the country (which will be defenseless because Bush sent most of our military to Afghanistan and Iraq) and then use a nuclear weapon (which they will get a hold of because Reagan's "zero sum" Cold War strategy prompted the USSR to make a surplus of them, which they lost track of after the empire collapsed and which could now be anywhere) to blow up Japan (no reason why they'd choose Japan, just guessing here), which means no more good anime for anyone, pissing off nerds the world over.
Remember, there is no stupid answer. Only stupid people.
8) Why no tort reform? How about because lawyers aren't the cause of this problem? The reason people have to spend too much on medical care (and it's interesting that you suddenly acknowledge this problem in your sixth point, since you all-but-deny it in your third) is because insurance companies have a monopoly on how people receive medical treatment; they know that no matter how much they charge you, you'll have to pay it, because you have no where else to turn if you don't. It's called price gouging, another basic principle of morally bankrupt economics. So why do people complain about lawyers in the first place? Well, when a lawyer sues a doctor for malpractice, the doctor isn't usually the one who pays out - it's either the big business that owns the hospital or the insurance company. Now why would they oppose this? Oh, wait, I forgot... it's because they have a deep maternal love for average joes everywhere, and not because they're greedy.
9) Government programs fail miserably? Then I'm assuming you won't have any problem if I deny you use of the police, firefighters, building inspectors, an army, libraries, museums, and the clearly-worthless high school diploma you got from Easton Area High School. Oh, and people actually DO like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which is why so many people use them and why any politician who tries to get rid of them loses a shitload of votes; they are underfunded, and going bankrupt, because presidents like Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes kept slashing funds for and/or trying to privatize them, while diverting more money into tax cuts for the rich and imperialist wars abroad. Oh, and military health care has been widely acknowledged to be among the best in the world - and that is provided by whom?
10) Sigh. So you think Obama is a socialist/communist. First, you need to pick one. They're not the same thing, and I really don't feel like explaining BOTH of them to you and then proving that Obama is neither. As such, I have a proposal - you look up what each of those terms means, get back to me with what you find, and then show me exactly how Obama's policies fit either of those descriptions. I'm sure I'll have a blast reading it.
INTERESTED IN PART THREE OF THIS TRILOGY? CHECK OUT THE FINAL LINK:
http://riskinghemlock.blogspot.com/2009/09/conversation-with-informed-citizen-part_02.html
Conversation with an Informed Citizen - Part One
This morning I found the following letter in my Facebook Inbox. It came from an old high school acquaintance with whom I hadn't spoken in six years. Here is what he wrote:
mr. rosza! please tell me, can someone who is anti-government run health care still be in favor of health care reform?
as a concerned pennsylvanian, i called arlen spector's office last month to chalk a tally mark against the current health bill being rushed thru the house, told the assistant that i was "strongly opposed to spector voting in favor of that bill." the assistant on the line replied "so you're calling to voice against health care reform?" obviously, you see the manipulation of his words in response to my stance. i told him i wasnt opposed to reform, just that particular bill, and govt run care for that matter. it's a shame i had to clarify.
in all, i find it typical (somewhat at least) that the "liberal" side labels those who are opposed to the govt option as anti-health care reform. please tell me your side doesnt actually believe all the right wing nuts showing up at town halls actually like how crippling the health care system is right now.
Being genetically incapable of turning down an opportunity such as this, I wrote my peer a very lengthy reply, which I have posted below. Sadly I was so charged with enthusiasm while writing it that I did not provide it with my usual attention to grammatical accuracy, and since I was too lazy to correct my acquaintance's spelling and grammatical errors in this blog post, it is only fair that I refrain from doing the same with my own (the name of my friend has been changed to protect his identity).
Hello Bob. I am going to address the subjects of your letter point-by-point:
1) Yes, it is possible to be opposed to goverrnment run health care while still favoring health care reform. Fortunately, that is the position taken by President Obama and most of the liberal Democrats currently serving in Congress. The argument we have made is that the government should provide a "public option" - i.e, a government-run insurance company that offers high-quality care for low rates so that people who can't afford private insurance can still have access to the medical coverage they need. There is nothing revolutionary about this proposal - it is hardly socialism (since that would involve the government forcing private insurers out of business and making itself the only provider of health insurance, rather than simply an alternative provider), and it is hardly un-American (Medicare, the health insurance program that benefits the elderly and has been in place for decades, is a purely government-run program). No prominent liberal Democrats have proposed making all health insurance government-run - they have instead wanted to provide an alternative for those who are too poor to afford private insurance. Not only does this solve the moral problem that currently exists with our health care system (i.e, people not being able to afford the medical treatments they need, or only being able to do so by going into crippling debt), but it also alleviates the financial burden that those who are insured have to bear. After all, when people without insurance go into the emergency room, their coverage still has to get paid for somehow - and more often than not, this is done by raising insurance premiums on those who are covered.
2) While I can understand your frustration at having Senator Specter's office assume that opposition to the specific bill being proposed is the same as opposing health care reform altogether, I can also understand why they misinterpreted you as they did. For one thing, many of the people who oppose this current bill (including the right-wing nuts at town hall meetings) DO oppose health care reform altogether - you have to remember that many of them are paid for by insurance and pharmaceutical companies (who will lose money if health care reform is passed), many of them are either wealthy or fancy themselves as such (and thus feel that the people without health insurance deserve their situation and shouldn't be helped out by "hard-working" Americans like themselves), and many of them are libertarian zealots who oppose having any government regulation whatsoever of private enterprise (their philosophy, taken to its natural logical outcome, would not only prevent a public option from being created, but would completely de-regulate insurance and pharmaceutical companies, eliminate Medicare for the elderly, and render any reform at all absolutely impossible, since obviously reform has to come from government intervention). Therefore it makes perfect sense that Senator Specter's office would assume that you, like so many others, opposed all health care reform altogether, and I give them credit for recognizing their mistake when you pointed it out and correcting it.
3) My side doesn't believe that all opponents of the current health care reform package are opposed to health care reform of any form. We do believe, however, that many of the current opponents of the health care reform package have a gross misunderstanding of what precisely the package entails, and are frankly mystified at the vehemence with which so many Americans oppose it. Part of this is due to an aggressive propaganda campaign that has been waged by right-wing zealots, racists, and the big business wing of modern medicine (pharmaceutical and insurance companies) to kill this bill, either for ideological or financial reasons (and quite often both). They have knowingly spread lies about death panels, long lines, bureaucracies separating you from your doctor, people who are disabled or elderly being discriminated against, and so on. The actual bill being proposed, on the other hand, contains the following:
a) Cutting hundreds of billions of dollars of bureaucratic waste in the Medicaid and Medicare programs by eliminating fiscal overlap (i.e, two bureaucratic agencies spending money on the same services because no one has bothered to check that each one is doing the same thing) and other egregious affronts to financial responsibility.
b) Determine that taxpayer money which is sent to insurance companies (by the way, those who complain about socialism overlook that private insurance companies already get a lot of money from our government right now) is actually necessary, so that the practice of CEOs and other company men pocketing those funds (which is wasteful as well as corrupt) will come to an end.
c) Create reforms to put a cap on how much senior citizens can be forced to pay for prescription drugs.
d) Prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of previous medical conditions.
e) Prohibit insurance companies from dropping people from their plans after they become sick.
f) Limiting the amount of money insurance companies can demand patients pay in out-of-pocket expenses, so that people won't have to go broke or into debt after becoming sick.
g) Require insurance companies to cover preventive care treatments, such as routine physical exams, colonoscopies, and mammograms.
h) Provide insurance to the fifty million Americans who currently lack it - ideally through a public option, but if not that, then through a health insurance co-op or some other vehicle that will allow those who currently cannot afford health care to receive the quality treatment to which they are entitled.
That last point is the most important one I could make. Indeed, I view it as un-American to disagree with it. Didn't Thomas Jefferson write somewhere, in a document that many people have forgotten, that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." That statement is the foundation upon which every other principle of American life rests, and among the rights that are listed as "unalienable" to "all men" because they have been "endowed by their Creator", the very first one is "life". Jefferson makes it very clear that he believes it is the responsible of governments to aggressively guarantee that its citizens have these rights. In fact, he says so in the very next sentence: "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." As such, I can hardly conceive of any position more un-American than to assert that the government DOESN'T have a responsibility to make sure that all of its citizens - the poor as well as the rich - have access to high-quality health care. Then again, when it comes to interpreting our Founding Fathers' intent, I am a literalist.
THERE IS MORE WHERE THIS CAME FROM! JUST READ THE FOLLOW-UP CONVERSATION AT THIS LINK:
http://riskinghemlock.blogspot.com/2009/09/conversation-with-informed-citizen-part.html
mr. rosza! please tell me, can someone who is anti-government run health care still be in favor of health care reform?
as a concerned pennsylvanian, i called arlen spector's office last month to chalk a tally mark against the current health bill being rushed thru the house, told the assistant that i was "strongly opposed to spector voting in favor of that bill." the assistant on the line replied "so you're calling to voice against health care reform?" obviously, you see the manipulation of his words in response to my stance. i told him i wasnt opposed to reform, just that particular bill, and govt run care for that matter. it's a shame i had to clarify.
in all, i find it typical (somewhat at least) that the "liberal" side labels those who are opposed to the govt option as anti-health care reform. please tell me your side doesnt actually believe all the right wing nuts showing up at town halls actually like how crippling the health care system is right now.
Being genetically incapable of turning down an opportunity such as this, I wrote my peer a very lengthy reply, which I have posted below. Sadly I was so charged with enthusiasm while writing it that I did not provide it with my usual attention to grammatical accuracy, and since I was too lazy to correct my acquaintance's spelling and grammatical errors in this blog post, it is only fair that I refrain from doing the same with my own (the name of my friend has been changed to protect his identity).
Hello Bob. I am going to address the subjects of your letter point-by-point:
1) Yes, it is possible to be opposed to goverrnment run health care while still favoring health care reform. Fortunately, that is the position taken by President Obama and most of the liberal Democrats currently serving in Congress. The argument we have made is that the government should provide a "public option" - i.e, a government-run insurance company that offers high-quality care for low rates so that people who can't afford private insurance can still have access to the medical coverage they need. There is nothing revolutionary about this proposal - it is hardly socialism (since that would involve the government forcing private insurers out of business and making itself the only provider of health insurance, rather than simply an alternative provider), and it is hardly un-American (Medicare, the health insurance program that benefits the elderly and has been in place for decades, is a purely government-run program). No prominent liberal Democrats have proposed making all health insurance government-run - they have instead wanted to provide an alternative for those who are too poor to afford private insurance. Not only does this solve the moral problem that currently exists with our health care system (i.e, people not being able to afford the medical treatments they need, or only being able to do so by going into crippling debt), but it also alleviates the financial burden that those who are insured have to bear. After all, when people without insurance go into the emergency room, their coverage still has to get paid for somehow - and more often than not, this is done by raising insurance premiums on those who are covered.
2) While I can understand your frustration at having Senator Specter's office assume that opposition to the specific bill being proposed is the same as opposing health care reform altogether, I can also understand why they misinterpreted you as they did. For one thing, many of the people who oppose this current bill (including the right-wing nuts at town hall meetings) DO oppose health care reform altogether - you have to remember that many of them are paid for by insurance and pharmaceutical companies (who will lose money if health care reform is passed), many of them are either wealthy or fancy themselves as such (and thus feel that the people without health insurance deserve their situation and shouldn't be helped out by "hard-working" Americans like themselves), and many of them are libertarian zealots who oppose having any government regulation whatsoever of private enterprise (their philosophy, taken to its natural logical outcome, would not only prevent a public option from being created, but would completely de-regulate insurance and pharmaceutical companies, eliminate Medicare for the elderly, and render any reform at all absolutely impossible, since obviously reform has to come from government intervention). Therefore it makes perfect sense that Senator Specter's office would assume that you, like so many others, opposed all health care reform altogether, and I give them credit for recognizing their mistake when you pointed it out and correcting it.
3) My side doesn't believe that all opponents of the current health care reform package are opposed to health care reform of any form. We do believe, however, that many of the current opponents of the health care reform package have a gross misunderstanding of what precisely the package entails, and are frankly mystified at the vehemence with which so many Americans oppose it. Part of this is due to an aggressive propaganda campaign that has been waged by right-wing zealots, racists, and the big business wing of modern medicine (pharmaceutical and insurance companies) to kill this bill, either for ideological or financial reasons (and quite often both). They have knowingly spread lies about death panels, long lines, bureaucracies separating you from your doctor, people who are disabled or elderly being discriminated against, and so on. The actual bill being proposed, on the other hand, contains the following:
a) Cutting hundreds of billions of dollars of bureaucratic waste in the Medicaid and Medicare programs by eliminating fiscal overlap (i.e, two bureaucratic agencies spending money on the same services because no one has bothered to check that each one is doing the same thing) and other egregious affronts to financial responsibility.
b) Determine that taxpayer money which is sent to insurance companies (by the way, those who complain about socialism overlook that private insurance companies already get a lot of money from our government right now) is actually necessary, so that the practice of CEOs and other company men pocketing those funds (which is wasteful as well as corrupt) will come to an end.
c) Create reforms to put a cap on how much senior citizens can be forced to pay for prescription drugs.
d) Prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of previous medical conditions.
e) Prohibit insurance companies from dropping people from their plans after they become sick.
f) Limiting the amount of money insurance companies can demand patients pay in out-of-pocket expenses, so that people won't have to go broke or into debt after becoming sick.
g) Require insurance companies to cover preventive care treatments, such as routine physical exams, colonoscopies, and mammograms.
h) Provide insurance to the fifty million Americans who currently lack it - ideally through a public option, but if not that, then through a health insurance co-op or some other vehicle that will allow those who currently cannot afford health care to receive the quality treatment to which they are entitled.
That last point is the most important one I could make. Indeed, I view it as un-American to disagree with it. Didn't Thomas Jefferson write somewhere, in a document that many people have forgotten, that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." That statement is the foundation upon which every other principle of American life rests, and among the rights that are listed as "unalienable" to "all men" because they have been "endowed by their Creator", the very first one is "life". Jefferson makes it very clear that he believes it is the responsible of governments to aggressively guarantee that its citizens have these rights. In fact, he says so in the very next sentence: "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." As such, I can hardly conceive of any position more un-American than to assert that the government DOESN'T have a responsibility to make sure that all of its citizens - the poor as well as the rich - have access to high-quality health care. Then again, when it comes to interpreting our Founding Fathers' intent, I am a literalist.
THERE IS MORE WHERE THIS CAME FROM! JUST READ THE FOLLOW-UP CONVERSATION AT THIS LINK:
http://riskinghemlock.blogspot.com/2009/09/conversation-with-informed-citizen-part.html
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
A Tribute to Ted Kennedy
At a time when tributes to Ted Kennedy are popping up all over the media, each one making stops at all the right rhetorical bases (it is the end of an era, he was a titan of the Senate, a true lion for the cause of liberalism, etc), it is easy to forget that very few of us are actually capable of adequately encapsulating the contents of another man's mind. All of us can recite Kennedy's achievements in fighting for health care reform, civil rights, women's rights, education, environmental legislation, and beyond, but who is truly qualified to pronounce who Kennedy was - what made him tick, what made him such a legend, and as such why his death is such a great loss?
The answer to that question is organically connected, of course, to the mythos which surrounds the Kennedy brand. John Kennedy offered the liberal movement its first inspiring president since Franklin Roosevelt, and soon provided the hopes and ideals of an entire era with a handsome face, charismatic persona, and eloquent voice. When his life was brutally snuffed out, his brother Bobby assumed the mantle of his fallen sibling, and did so with great promise... until he too was murdered, at what very well could have been his impending ascent to the White House (it is worth noting that his murder arguably constitutes the first act of Islamic terrorism on American soil; his assassin, Sirhan Sirhan, shot RFK on the one year anniversary of the Six Day War due to Kennedy's support for Israel).
That left Edward Kennedy. A brief movement sprung up to draft him for the presidential nomination in 1968; Kennedy, recognizing the political power held by Vice President Hubert Humphrey over the Democratic Party following his brother's death and seeing the disadvantages of running as a one-term thirty-six-year-old Massachusetts Senator, prudently declined all such offers. It is quite likely that he would have been the Democratic party's presidential nominee in 1972 (indeed, there is abundant evidence that such a possibility was President Nixon's greatest fear) had it not been for a single irrevocable tragedy - Chappaquiddick, which occurred one year to the day after his Robert Kennedy's death and (ironically) transpired at a party being held to honor the memory of his quixotic campaign. Rather than summarize the details again here (especially considering how likely it is that they will be repeated ad nauseam within the next few days), I think it is sufficient to say that the damage they did to the personal reputation of Edward Moore Kennedy was fatal. It did not detract from the idealism of the Kennedy brand; indeed, Kennedy was capable of using the hope fostered by his great name to pose a serious challenge to an incumbent president within his own party, Jimmy Carter, during the 1980 Democratic primary. Yet Chappaquiddick ultimately guaranteed that while Kennedy might be allowed to carry on the legacy of his brothers, Americans would never entrust him to do so in the White House.
Though he was no doubt disappointed, Kennedy took advantage of this by having a rich and meaningful career as a Senator, one that far exceeded in sheer fruitfulness those of either of his two siblings. And I think this willingness to make the best of the hand fate dealt him - this resigned acceptance of the fact that he would never live to see another Kennedy in the White House, but that he had an obligation to uphold the values for which his family stood, even if that required attaining distinction in a less distinguished post - THAT, I believe, will be Kennedy's greatest legacy. Many politicians before him have abandoned everything for which they ostensibly stood once it became clear that their presidential dreams were out of reach; certainly Kennedy could have maintained his reputation, his fame, his wealth, his prestige, without subjecting himself to years of brutal legislative battles, exhausting re-election campaigns, and the constant slog of life as one of America's most active Senators. His supporters may have felt somewhat let down by his retreat from public life, but certainly few would have held a permanent grudge against him. Such selfishness is so common among our politicians that we have grown to expect it, and rarely fault our would-be statesmen when they choose to display it.
Yet Kennedy continued to devote his life fighting for the cause of liberalism well after there was any personal advantage he could derive from doing so. This, more than anything, proves that he deserves honor for more than just being a Kennedy; at a time when so many progressive champions prove their ideals to be mere expedients (I'm looking at you, John Edwards), Kennedy showed that he was the real deal.
The answer to that question is organically connected, of course, to the mythos which surrounds the Kennedy brand. John Kennedy offered the liberal movement its first inspiring president since Franklin Roosevelt, and soon provided the hopes and ideals of an entire era with a handsome face, charismatic persona, and eloquent voice. When his life was brutally snuffed out, his brother Bobby assumed the mantle of his fallen sibling, and did so with great promise... until he too was murdered, at what very well could have been his impending ascent to the White House (it is worth noting that his murder arguably constitutes the first act of Islamic terrorism on American soil; his assassin, Sirhan Sirhan, shot RFK on the one year anniversary of the Six Day War due to Kennedy's support for Israel).
That left Edward Kennedy. A brief movement sprung up to draft him for the presidential nomination in 1968; Kennedy, recognizing the political power held by Vice President Hubert Humphrey over the Democratic Party following his brother's death and seeing the disadvantages of running as a one-term thirty-six-year-old Massachusetts Senator, prudently declined all such offers. It is quite likely that he would have been the Democratic party's presidential nominee in 1972 (indeed, there is abundant evidence that such a possibility was President Nixon's greatest fear) had it not been for a single irrevocable tragedy - Chappaquiddick, which occurred one year to the day after his Robert Kennedy's death and (ironically) transpired at a party being held to honor the memory of his quixotic campaign. Rather than summarize the details again here (especially considering how likely it is that they will be repeated ad nauseam within the next few days), I think it is sufficient to say that the damage they did to the personal reputation of Edward Moore Kennedy was fatal. It did not detract from the idealism of the Kennedy brand; indeed, Kennedy was capable of using the hope fostered by his great name to pose a serious challenge to an incumbent president within his own party, Jimmy Carter, during the 1980 Democratic primary. Yet Chappaquiddick ultimately guaranteed that while Kennedy might be allowed to carry on the legacy of his brothers, Americans would never entrust him to do so in the White House.
Though he was no doubt disappointed, Kennedy took advantage of this by having a rich and meaningful career as a Senator, one that far exceeded in sheer fruitfulness those of either of his two siblings. And I think this willingness to make the best of the hand fate dealt him - this resigned acceptance of the fact that he would never live to see another Kennedy in the White House, but that he had an obligation to uphold the values for which his family stood, even if that required attaining distinction in a less distinguished post - THAT, I believe, will be Kennedy's greatest legacy. Many politicians before him have abandoned everything for which they ostensibly stood once it became clear that their presidential dreams were out of reach; certainly Kennedy could have maintained his reputation, his fame, his wealth, his prestige, without subjecting himself to years of brutal legislative battles, exhausting re-election campaigns, and the constant slog of life as one of America's most active Senators. His supporters may have felt somewhat let down by his retreat from public life, but certainly few would have held a permanent grudge against him. Such selfishness is so common among our politicians that we have grown to expect it, and rarely fault our would-be statesmen when they choose to display it.
Yet Kennedy continued to devote his life fighting for the cause of liberalism well after there was any personal advantage he could derive from doing so. This, more than anything, proves that he deserves honor for more than just being a Kennedy; at a time when so many progressive champions prove their ideals to be mere expedients (I'm looking at you, John Edwards), Kennedy showed that he was the real deal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)