Two recent pieces in the NY Times have piqued my interest: one an editorial that was affirming the Democrats’ approach to health care reform, another opinion piece slamming the Democrats (and Pres. Obama) for not focusing on the economy in an obsessive attempt to reform health care. Add to that a spirited debate on my younger brother-in-law’s Facebook page on this subject, and I’ve been doing a lot of thinking. So here are my most recent thoughts on health care reform
What I Like
Let’s start with the positives. There are several pieces of the proposed legislation that I like. I think insurance companies should have to accept you even with pre-existing conditions. I think the changes to Medicare are realistic and could pay for the additional coverage for other Americans. Giving options to people who don’t work for big corporations is also a positive. It’s also not the ‘government takeover’ many conservatives have called it.
What I Don’t Like
This list is a little longer. Let’s go one-by-one.
Making Americans buy health insurance. I don’t like forcing people to do things. Maybe it’s the little Libertarian voice in my head, but this part of the health care reform bills make me nervous.
Too little focus on cost. According to the Congressional Budget office, Pres. Obama’s plan would actually reduce the deficient. That is good. There are also indications that it would reduce the overall US expenditure on health care. Also good. But this bill is not about reducing health care costs, it’s about covering more Americans. I would have worked on cost reform first.
The wrong priority. Like in the Bob Herbert piece above, I find this obsessive focus on health care reform puzzling. We’re mired in the midst of the greatest economic slumps in 80 years, but the Democrats are hell-bent on reforming health care over all else. Would most Americans struggling with a cold, dark economic reality rather have a job or decent health care coverage? Three years ago it might have been health care, but now people want jobs and economic growth. I would prioritize the following over health care reform: education; reducing poverty; economic stimulus and reform; repairing some of our ancient infrastructure (like highways, bridges and water systems). I think most Americans would put health care reform as a necessary but secondary reform. Somehow the Democrats have missed this and are forging on anyway. But the price could be good economic reform, because the will of the people may be dissolved by the divisive health care effort.
The assumption of a right. Is access to affordable health care a fundamental human right? I don’t believe so. But it seems like this debate has assumed that. Because if it’s not a right, it is something that can be prioritized and treated differently. If it’s a right, then the government would have a moral obligation to provide it. I don’t believe it is.
Abortion. As a pro-lifer, this part bothers me a lot. I don’t believe government should pay for/sponsor any abortions. That is the current status quo, and I don’t want pro-choice Democrats slipping this one in. Pres. Obama promised the status quo on abortion. Reminder No. 547 that he’s a lying politician.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Monday, October 26, 2009
Why You Should Care About Fox News
The Obama White House is in a fierce battle with Fox News, especially some of the right-wing commentators like Glen Beck. Why should you care? Because this White House is starting to trample all over the 1st Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Think about this for a moment: The Obama White House is restricting the access of one of the biggest news organizations in the country. Is Fox News tilted to the right? Absolutely. Are some of their commentators over the top? Depends upon your political leanings, but many are certainly anti-Obama.
So if you're a liberal, you're probably thinking that Fox News is getting exactly what they deserve. You're wrong. Whether you like the commentators on Fox or not, they have the right to say whatever they want, even if are an 'arm of the Republican Party.' They are a legitimate news organization; even the New York Times is lining up behind Fox. Why? Because anytime journalists feel that freedom of the press is being threatened, they group together like a bunch of threatened animals.
And as the Times piece above says, there are many very good reporters who work for Fox News who produce good broadcast news stories. So let's take a step back in history. Part of the problem in this discussion is a misunderstanding about objectivity in journalism, which is a complete myth, and a modern one at that. Anytime editing is involved, bias is too. This is not a good or bad thing; it's just a fact of existence. That's why diversifying your news sources is a good thing if you want to approximate the truth. I read the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.
And if you go back before WWII, almost every newspaper in the country was known as liberal or conservative. We now have a much better line between opinion and news. That line hardly existed 100 years ago.
Glen Beck and his ilk and no worse than Frank Rich and his kind, and they are following centuries old tradition of promoting an agenda, the truth be damned. It is clear that the Obama administration does not want dissent in the press, someone actively bashing the liberal agenda. But we need that. And while the White House excluding Fox News may not be unconstitutional, it certainly violates the spirit of the freedom of the press. And it is another step that will inflame the right further against Obama, and turn off moderates who want a diversity of voice.
The past two administrations have been filled with arrogance and hubris. I am tired of White House figures ignoring the Constitution or basic human rights. For those of you that think there are no similarities between the W and Obama administrations, think again. They don't want you to think for yourself, and they will go to great lengths to make sure you don't.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Think about this for a moment: The Obama White House is restricting the access of one of the biggest news organizations in the country. Is Fox News tilted to the right? Absolutely. Are some of their commentators over the top? Depends upon your political leanings, but many are certainly anti-Obama.
So if you're a liberal, you're probably thinking that Fox News is getting exactly what they deserve. You're wrong. Whether you like the commentators on Fox or not, they have the right to say whatever they want, even if are an 'arm of the Republican Party.' They are a legitimate news organization; even the New York Times is lining up behind Fox. Why? Because anytime journalists feel that freedom of the press is being threatened, they group together like a bunch of threatened animals.
And as the Times piece above says, there are many very good reporters who work for Fox News who produce good broadcast news stories. So let's take a step back in history. Part of the problem in this discussion is a misunderstanding about objectivity in journalism, which is a complete myth, and a modern one at that. Anytime editing is involved, bias is too. This is not a good or bad thing; it's just a fact of existence. That's why diversifying your news sources is a good thing if you want to approximate the truth. I read the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.
And if you go back before WWII, almost every newspaper in the country was known as liberal or conservative. We now have a much better line between opinion and news. That line hardly existed 100 years ago.
Glen Beck and his ilk and no worse than Frank Rich and his kind, and they are following centuries old tradition of promoting an agenda, the truth be damned. It is clear that the Obama administration does not want dissent in the press, someone actively bashing the liberal agenda. But we need that. And while the White House excluding Fox News may not be unconstitutional, it certainly violates the spirit of the freedom of the press. And it is another step that will inflame the right further against Obama, and turn off moderates who want a diversity of voice.
The past two administrations have been filled with arrogance and hubris. I am tired of White House figures ignoring the Constitution or basic human rights. For those of you that think there are no similarities between the W and Obama administrations, think again. They don't want you to think for yourself, and they will go to great lengths to make sure you don't.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Gap between rich and poor: What should it be?
For much of my life I've heard a the argument that the gap between the rich and the poor in the US (and around the world) is getting too large.
I've always wondered what that meant. Unless we accept a communist-like society (true communism, not totalitarian socialism), there will always be a gap. The questions becomes how big should that gap be.
The news has recently come out that the income gap is shrinking in the US for the first time in years. But not because of growth in the low- or medium-income households, but because of shrinking incomes at the top. But is that truly a good thing? In this case, no. I think even many people who make the argument about a smaller income gap would say that shrinking at the top without growing the bottom is not good for the nation, even if it would make some feel better.
Of course, the same argument could be made about growing the bottom at the expense of the top. Would rich Americans stand by and let government policy erode their wealth? Unlikely, and with money comes power and the ability to influence the political process more easily than other Americans. So it also might not be sustainable.
But perpetually growing the top may not be sustainable either. How long will the poor continue to watch the fat grow fatter without rising up as a political force to be reckoned with?
One writer even says that this shrinking top tier is bad for everyone, because they pay most of the income taxes. I know that many Americans believe that rich Americans get out of paying taxes, but on the whole, it's just not true. According to IRS estimates, percentage of income taxes coming from the top 5% of earners (which according to the US Census Bureau is households making more than $167,000 per year in 2005) is growing year over year. So they may be getting wealthier (until 2009), but they are also shouldering more and more of the tax burden.
Another interesting fact: a 1999 Harvard study indicated that a large gap between the rich and poor in a poor country retarded growth, while a large gap in developed countries encouraged total economic growth.
Again I ask the question (and not rhetorically), what should the gap be? How do we define it? It's easy to play the populist game (I'm looking at you Mr. Edwards) and tell poor people that all their problems are created by greedy corporations and individuals. But as a society, is this gap something we want to actively manage?
So next time you hear someone say the gap between rich and poor is too large, ask them that simple question: What should the gap be? Let me know if you get a good answer.
I've always wondered what that meant. Unless we accept a communist-like society (true communism, not totalitarian socialism), there will always be a gap. The questions becomes how big should that gap be.
The news has recently come out that the income gap is shrinking in the US for the first time in years. But not because of growth in the low- or medium-income households, but because of shrinking incomes at the top. But is that truly a good thing? In this case, no. I think even many people who make the argument about a smaller income gap would say that shrinking at the top without growing the bottom is not good for the nation, even if it would make some feel better.
Of course, the same argument could be made about growing the bottom at the expense of the top. Would rich Americans stand by and let government policy erode their wealth? Unlikely, and with money comes power and the ability to influence the political process more easily than other Americans. So it also might not be sustainable.
But perpetually growing the top may not be sustainable either. How long will the poor continue to watch the fat grow fatter without rising up as a political force to be reckoned with?
One writer even says that this shrinking top tier is bad for everyone, because they pay most of the income taxes. I know that many Americans believe that rich Americans get out of paying taxes, but on the whole, it's just not true. According to IRS estimates, percentage of income taxes coming from the top 5% of earners (which according to the US Census Bureau is households making more than $167,000 per year in 2005) is growing year over year. So they may be getting wealthier (until 2009), but they are also shouldering more and more of the tax burden.
Another interesting fact: a 1999 Harvard study indicated that a large gap between the rich and poor in a poor country retarded growth, while a large gap in developed countries encouraged total economic growth.
Again I ask the question (and not rhetorically), what should the gap be? How do we define it? It's easy to play the populist game (I'm looking at you Mr. Edwards) and tell poor people that all their problems are created by greedy corporations and individuals. But as a society, is this gap something we want to actively manage?
So next time you hear someone say the gap between rich and poor is too large, ask them that simple question: What should the gap be? Let me know if you get a good answer.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Health Care: Sucking up resources and time
The health care reform debate could end up becoming one of the biggest time sucks in U.S. political history. President Obama has made this his first major foray into domestic policy, and it could end up sinking his presidency or making his legacy.
But the question that is not being asked that should be is this: Why is this part of the domestic policy agenda? Why is this more important than the other domestic problems facing the nation?
You might be saying: Well, Adam, it's the most important. I would argue that it is not in the top 5 domestic issues, and this is an awful time to implement it. Here's why this health care idea is such a bad idea.
The timing of this is awful
We are in the worst recession in almost a century, with double-digit jobless rates, and some states hemorrhaging cash so fast that they're shutting down essential services. And we're going to add $1 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years? Obama has propagated the lie that his proposed solutions will bring down health care costs, yet his own budget office contradicts that.
The proposals don't fix the problems
The biggest problem in health care are rising costs, not access to care. And the current proposals due little to curb that. Unless we can bring insurance agencies under control and institute tort reform, all of these proposals are unlikely to really solve the problems and could cripple our nation.
There are more pressing issues
Let me list just a few that I would address well before health care: homelessness, joblessness, state budget problems, education, child hunger, the recession (which is not solved by the stimulus package). Are these as sexy? Probably not, but I believe strongly they're more important. And you could also add financial regulation to the list, since the federal government has done little to correct the issues that helped create this fiscal crisis.
It mystifies me that liberals are ignoring these issues to focus on health care. What about hungry children in the US? That's less important than health care? If we put all of this money into health care, will we have money to solve other problems? Not without major tax hikes and/or cuts in other programs.
Let's take education as an example. Yes, it was part of the stimulus program, but schools across the country are still laying off teachers, cutting programs, all while class sizes swell to scrary levels. Some districts in Arizona and California will average 40-50 high school students per class. And we're focused on health care? How about educating impoverished kids and helping them brake the cycle of poverty? Health care reform won't do that.
Final Thoughts
Please, President Obama and members of Congress, please drop this and focus on the bigger problems. Is health care reform needed? Absolutely, but let's put it in its proper context and fix the bigger priorities first. Please.
But the question that is not being asked that should be is this: Why is this part of the domestic policy agenda? Why is this more important than the other domestic problems facing the nation?
You might be saying: Well, Adam, it's the most important. I would argue that it is not in the top 5 domestic issues, and this is an awful time to implement it. Here's why this health care idea is such a bad idea.
The timing of this is awful
We are in the worst recession in almost a century, with double-digit jobless rates, and some states hemorrhaging cash so fast that they're shutting down essential services. And we're going to add $1 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years? Obama has propagated the lie that his proposed solutions will bring down health care costs, yet his own budget office contradicts that.
The proposals don't fix the problems
The biggest problem in health care are rising costs, not access to care. And the current proposals due little to curb that. Unless we can bring insurance agencies under control and institute tort reform, all of these proposals are unlikely to really solve the problems and could cripple our nation.
There are more pressing issues
Let me list just a few that I would address well before health care: homelessness, joblessness, state budget problems, education, child hunger, the recession (which is not solved by the stimulus package). Are these as sexy? Probably not, but I believe strongly they're more important. And you could also add financial regulation to the list, since the federal government has done little to correct the issues that helped create this fiscal crisis.
It mystifies me that liberals are ignoring these issues to focus on health care. What about hungry children in the US? That's less important than health care? If we put all of this money into health care, will we have money to solve other problems? Not without major tax hikes and/or cuts in other programs.
Let's take education as an example. Yes, it was part of the stimulus program, but schools across the country are still laying off teachers, cutting programs, all while class sizes swell to scrary levels. Some districts in Arizona and California will average 40-50 high school students per class. And we're focused on health care? How about educating impoverished kids and helping them brake the cycle of poverty? Health care reform won't do that.
Final Thoughts
Please, President Obama and members of Congress, please drop this and focus on the bigger problems. Is health care reform needed? Absolutely, but let's put it in its proper context and fix the bigger priorities first. Please.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
True Heroes of the Republic
Sen. Ted Kennedy's death has brought back to mind my complicated relationship with the Massachusetts senior senator. And I use the word relationship loosely, seeing that I never met the man.
When I was in junior high and high school in Norwell, Mass., I despised Kennedy. I was a very conservative youth. My political heroes were Reagen, George H.W. Bush, Quayle, and many of the strong conservatives in Congress. As one of only two Republicans in most of my classes (and with all of my teachers being as liberal as I was conservative), I felt like the last defender of the faith. And I never backed down.
Kennedy was the embodiment in my young mind of all that was wrong with liberal America. A lack of moral responsibility. An entitled upbringing, which, in my mind, made socialism easier to accept. And a member of the elite, a quasi-royal family that was a beloved institution of the Bay State.
The culmination of this was his senatorial race against Mitt Romney. I stayed registered in Massachusetts in 1994 (while I was attending Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah) for the purpose of voting against Kennedy. Romney was much too 'liberal' for my tastes, but he wasn't Kennedy. My first act as a voter would be to vote, with pride, against Kennedy.
My politics have shifted since then. After living in Utah, I found out I wasn't as conservative as I thought. I believe that the federal government needs to step in and fix primary education, especially in impoverished states and localities. I believe immigration is, for the most part, a positive thing, and provides the Republic with a backbone of dedicated, low-wage workers. These, among other issues, showed me I wasn't as 'conservative' as I thought I was, and my brief involvement with the college Republicans in 1994 left me a little disenchanted.
Fast-forward 15 years. After Kennedy died, I heard a news story on NPR and a tribute on NESN (the New England Sports Network) before a White Sox-Red Sox game. Think about that. A cable sports network spent much of its baseball telecast on the passing of a senator. Massachusetts is an interesting place for sports and politics.
It got me thinking: how would I remember the man? He had a successful career by all accounts, and was a part of almost anything major that transpired in the Senate from 1980 on. Despite repeated failures, he never gave up on socialized medicine. Though a lightning rod for conservative commentators, he made a career of reaching across the aisle, and made an improbable friendship with one of the Senate's conservative stalwarts, Orrin Hatch of Utah.
But I still disagree with him on almost every major issue, except for maybe immigration. But I don't despise him. Should Chappaquiddick have landed him in jail? Absolutely, but Kennedys don't go to jail. But his elitism, which was very evident early on in his career, faded with his presidential ambitions in 1980.
I can't say I admire the man, other than some of the great kindness he showed to people during the later stages of his life, and his dedication to the Republic, even if I disagree with his ideals.
So, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, as you hear all the platitudes showered upon Ted Kennedy, remember the true heroes of the Republic: dedicated school teachers; volunteers who help the poor and handicapped; and good parents who raise moral children. Ted Kennedy's life may have been a public one, but that doesn't necessarily make it a great one.
When I was in junior high and high school in Norwell, Mass., I despised Kennedy. I was a very conservative youth. My political heroes were Reagen, George H.W. Bush, Quayle, and many of the strong conservatives in Congress. As one of only two Republicans in most of my classes (and with all of my teachers being as liberal as I was conservative), I felt like the last defender of the faith. And I never backed down.
Kennedy was the embodiment in my young mind of all that was wrong with liberal America. A lack of moral responsibility. An entitled upbringing, which, in my mind, made socialism easier to accept. And a member of the elite, a quasi-royal family that was a beloved institution of the Bay State.
The culmination of this was his senatorial race against Mitt Romney. I stayed registered in Massachusetts in 1994 (while I was attending Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah) for the purpose of voting against Kennedy. Romney was much too 'liberal' for my tastes, but he wasn't Kennedy. My first act as a voter would be to vote, with pride, against Kennedy.
My politics have shifted since then. After living in Utah, I found out I wasn't as conservative as I thought. I believe that the federal government needs to step in and fix primary education, especially in impoverished states and localities. I believe immigration is, for the most part, a positive thing, and provides the Republic with a backbone of dedicated, low-wage workers. These, among other issues, showed me I wasn't as 'conservative' as I thought I was, and my brief involvement with the college Republicans in 1994 left me a little disenchanted.
Fast-forward 15 years. After Kennedy died, I heard a news story on NPR and a tribute on NESN (the New England Sports Network) before a White Sox-Red Sox game. Think about that. A cable sports network spent much of its baseball telecast on the passing of a senator. Massachusetts is an interesting place for sports and politics.
It got me thinking: how would I remember the man? He had a successful career by all accounts, and was a part of almost anything major that transpired in the Senate from 1980 on. Despite repeated failures, he never gave up on socialized medicine. Though a lightning rod for conservative commentators, he made a career of reaching across the aisle, and made an improbable friendship with one of the Senate's conservative stalwarts, Orrin Hatch of Utah.
But I still disagree with him on almost every major issue, except for maybe immigration. But I don't despise him. Should Chappaquiddick have landed him in jail? Absolutely, but Kennedys don't go to jail. But his elitism, which was very evident early on in his career, faded with his presidential ambitions in 1980.
I can't say I admire the man, other than some of the great kindness he showed to people during the later stages of his life, and his dedication to the Republic, even if I disagree with his ideals.
So, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, as you hear all the platitudes showered upon Ted Kennedy, remember the true heroes of the Republic: dedicated school teachers; volunteers who help the poor and handicapped; and good parents who raise moral children. Ted Kennedy's life may have been a public one, but that doesn't necessarily make it a great one.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Politcal Pet Peeves
This blog is not meant to act as others do. I’m not here to say that the Republican way is always the right way (though I am a Republican) and that Democrats are fools. I am looking for facts and evidence, ignoring nothing, in the hope that I can find a better way, and that whoever’s reading can join me on that journey.
So I thought I would start with my political pet peeves. These are in no particular order, but they are all things that bother me consistently within the current political realm.
Democrats….and Republicans
I’m tired of the ‘intellectual’ Democrats, embodied by several at the NY Times. Basically you’re an idiot if any of the following apply to you: you believe in God; you’re a Republican; you don’t think Obama’s health care plan will make your life better; you are pro-life.
They are not more intelligent than the rest of us, just more obnoxious, preaching from their leftist pulpit until the rest of us ‘come to our senses.’ For those Democrats who don’t fit into their preconceived buckets, beware; they will likely toss you aside because of your ‘ignorance.’
Republicans aren’t any better. The ‘religious right’ thinks you are a heathen if any of the following apply to you: you’re Catholic or Mormon; you’re Democrat; you don’t believe in God (which I guess, is the technical definition of heathen); you’re pro-choice.
You are not more religious or spiritual than others because of the particular church you belong to, and Mormons, Catholics, Muslims and Buddhists can be just as pious as you. Beware Republicans: If any of the above applies to you, the religious right will turn on you as you as fast as they misquote the Bible. Just ask Mitt Romney about that.
The Health Care ‘Debate’
First, let me start off by saying I don’t think access to affordable health care is a right. We may, as other societies have done, decide it is something we as a people are going to provide. But I find it baffling that in a country where almost 17 percent of children are lacking enough food (source: Food Resource and Action Center), we are building the foundation of a ‘right to health care.’ About the same percent of American’s are without health insurance. So food is not a right, but health insurance is? This is a greater priority than feeding children in our country? I just find this debate and energy to be misplaced.
I am not saying our health care system is not broken, or that some of the European models don’t do some intriguing things we as a society should discuss. But is this really our nation’s biggest problem? I know we can work on more than one thing at a time, but Obama’s agenda misses some of the most important things to me.
Second, the ‘end of life planning’ debate. First off, this is not about killing grandma. The shock tactics used by right-wing commentators are deplorable. Can’t we talk about facts and not scare tactics?
But the proponents of this measure are almost as disingenuous. Yes, it does not equate to euthanasia, but it does point us down the path of rationing health care in a different. I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing. If we believe health care is a limited resource, then it will be rationed. The question is how. Right now, it’s by your ability to get health insurance or to have enough cash to pay. Tomorrow it may be by need, which may mean denying certain procedures to older Americans who have little chance to live. This is just fact. Pretending that this is not the first step to doing that is not truthful. And the worst part is, it’s probably the right thing to do.
The Followers
“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. … Every man who parrots the cry of ‘stand by the President’ without adding the proviso ‘so far as he serves the Republic’ takes an attitude as essentially unmanly as that of any Stuart royalist who championed the doctrine that the King could do no wrong. No self-respecting and intelligent free man could take such an attitude.”
-Theodore Roosevelt
Obama is not a god. Obama is not a savior. His actions are that of a pure politician – calculating, pre-scripted, self-serving. His agenda was standard Democratic fare; he just said it a little better. I have nothing personal against the man, and I sincerely hope his presidency brings prosperity to the republic. But he is not the republic, and I’m tired of people lining up behind everything he does, without acknowledging his flaws and failures.
The same was never true for George W. Bush, who wasn’t ever completely trusted by his own party. But you could say the same about Ronald Reagan. Though I believe he was the greatest president of my lifetime (I was born in 1976), we’re grading on a curve. The Iran Contra Affair happened on his watch. We supported Saddam Hussein. Though he did many good things, he was not a god. He was not a savior. And criticizing some of his actions makes me no less of a Republican.
So I thought I would start with my political pet peeves. These are in no particular order, but they are all things that bother me consistently within the current political realm.
Democrats….and Republicans
I’m tired of the ‘intellectual’ Democrats, embodied by several at the NY Times. Basically you’re an idiot if any of the following apply to you: you believe in God; you’re a Republican; you don’t think Obama’s health care plan will make your life better; you are pro-life.
They are not more intelligent than the rest of us, just more obnoxious, preaching from their leftist pulpit until the rest of us ‘come to our senses.’ For those Democrats who don’t fit into their preconceived buckets, beware; they will likely toss you aside because of your ‘ignorance.’
Republicans aren’t any better. The ‘religious right’ thinks you are a heathen if any of the following apply to you: you’re Catholic or Mormon; you’re Democrat; you don’t believe in God (which I guess, is the technical definition of heathen); you’re pro-choice.
You are not more religious or spiritual than others because of the particular church you belong to, and Mormons, Catholics, Muslims and Buddhists can be just as pious as you. Beware Republicans: If any of the above applies to you, the religious right will turn on you as you as fast as they misquote the Bible. Just ask Mitt Romney about that.
The Health Care ‘Debate’
First, let me start off by saying I don’t think access to affordable health care is a right. We may, as other societies have done, decide it is something we as a people are going to provide. But I find it baffling that in a country where almost 17 percent of children are lacking enough food (source: Food Resource and Action Center), we are building the foundation of a ‘right to health care.’ About the same percent of American’s are without health insurance. So food is not a right, but health insurance is? This is a greater priority than feeding children in our country? I just find this debate and energy to be misplaced.
I am not saying our health care system is not broken, or that some of the European models don’t do some intriguing things we as a society should discuss. But is this really our nation’s biggest problem? I know we can work on more than one thing at a time, but Obama’s agenda misses some of the most important things to me.
Second, the ‘end of life planning’ debate. First off, this is not about killing grandma. The shock tactics used by right-wing commentators are deplorable. Can’t we talk about facts and not scare tactics?
But the proponents of this measure are almost as disingenuous. Yes, it does not equate to euthanasia, but it does point us down the path of rationing health care in a different. I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing. If we believe health care is a limited resource, then it will be rationed. The question is how. Right now, it’s by your ability to get health insurance or to have enough cash to pay. Tomorrow it may be by need, which may mean denying certain procedures to older Americans who have little chance to live. This is just fact. Pretending that this is not the first step to doing that is not truthful. And the worst part is, it’s probably the right thing to do.
The Followers
“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. … Every man who parrots the cry of ‘stand by the President’ without adding the proviso ‘so far as he serves the Republic’ takes an attitude as essentially unmanly as that of any Stuart royalist who championed the doctrine that the King could do no wrong. No self-respecting and intelligent free man could take such an attitude.”
-Theodore Roosevelt
Obama is not a god. Obama is not a savior. His actions are that of a pure politician – calculating, pre-scripted, self-serving. His agenda was standard Democratic fare; he just said it a little better. I have nothing personal against the man, and I sincerely hope his presidency brings prosperity to the republic. But he is not the republic, and I’m tired of people lining up behind everything he does, without acknowledging his flaws and failures.
The same was never true for George W. Bush, who wasn’t ever completely trusted by his own party. But you could say the same about Ronald Reagan. Though I believe he was the greatest president of my lifetime (I was born in 1976), we’re grading on a curve. The Iran Contra Affair happened on his watch. We supported Saddam Hussein. Though he did many good things, he was not a god. He was not a savior. And criticizing some of his actions makes me no less of a Republican.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)