Congressman Paul Ryan Can Shove His American Character Right Up His Ass
Yesterday, Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly pointed out that Paul Ryan had a piece at the American Spectator Web site. In it, Ryan writes:
The American character itself and the principles of free market democracy which protect and preserve it may be lost beyond recovery if Congress chooses the wrong path to health care reform
Ryan's core argument is that even though healthcare falls into the inalienable right category, government shouldn't provide healthcare no more than it should build homes for its citizens.
Before I explain why reading Congressman Ryan's argument makes me very, very angry, I'd like to unpack it just a bit.
Conservatives are all over the map, claiming that government shouldn't run healthcare. But so far as I can tell, the legislation working its way through Congress doesn't suggest anything of the sort. As I understand it, there is a proposal to modernize office technology so that different doctors treating the same patient have instant access to that patient's records so that duplicate tests and treatments are eliminated, saving time and money. Also, there is a proposal for prohibitions to keep companies from refusing policyholders on the basis of pre-existing conditions and from dumping previously health, premium-paying people after they get sick. So far, so good, right? That's not the government providing healthcare. That's the government making requirements of the healthcare industry. Going back to Ryan's house-building argument, the government regulates who builds my house and how they build it. I assume the Congressman is okay with that.
But now we're going to get into a couple areas where I think the Congressman has the biggest objection to the reform.
First, the wealthy are being asked to pay extra to provide insurance coverage for people who cannot pay premiums for themselves. The conservative wealthy, and those who are their bitches, always freak out when they hear their taxes are going to increase. But if they stopped to think, and to breathe for just a second, maybe they would understand that if poor people have health care insurance, they will be more likely to go to the doctor when they are sick. This is not only better for public health in general, but it will keep insurance premiums down, since all of us who are paying for insurance premiums aren't also paying to cover emergency room visits for those who cannot pay. Also, if workers go to the doctor when they're sick, they get better faster, and back to work faster.
Let's review. People will get care when they need it, which will lead to people being healthier, which means they'll be more productive at work, which means business owners will make more money. In addition, premiums for everyone will be lower, because we're all sharing the risk, which means middle class families will have more money to spend at those same businesses, which means business owners make more money. So, maybe we can file the "Don't Raise My Taxes" argument under cutting off your nose to spite your face.
The second area that I think really gets Congressman Ryan's American Character going is a public health insurance plan. This is where conservatives start screaming about Canada and Europe and socialism and fire and brimstone. Or whatever. This is the government running your healthcare! Be very afraid!
Now, I know that the Republican party isn't getting too many Mensa invitations these days so I'm going to take a minute to explain the concept of insurance for their benefit. See, there are certain unpredictable risks inherent in living. You might have a car accident. Your house might catch fire. You might accidentally call someone a big, fat liar and they might sue you. Or, you might get sick. These are things we don't have any control over that have the potential to ruin us financially. So, we pay a small premium to an insurance company, which in turn agrees to cover our losses if and when one of these risks becomes a reality. While we hear about these sorts of things happening all the time, as a percentage of our population, they are really quite rare. That's why the insurance industry is generally rolling in cash.
The property, casualty, and life insurance industries are rolling in cash despite the fact that they are heavily regulated and cannot, for example, decide to cancel your policy just after you've had a car accident but before they've had to cover your loss. Not so for the medical insurance industry. If you get sick, they can drop you. They have to get really creative to do it, but they can. Also, they can raise your premiums and raise your deductibles and deny you coverage for certain drugs or certain treatments.
Why? Because they all do it and if we want insurance, we have to go along. Our only other option is to stop paying the premiums and hope we never get sick.
If there was a public health insurance plan, the goal of the administrators of that plan would not be to make money. Sure, the underwriters and claims folks would still have to make sure that they were collecting enough premium to cover their losses. But they wouldn't have to be collecting enough premium to pay for the CEO's kids' private schools or his fancy house in the Hamptons. If enough people decide they'd rather have public insurance, the private companies are going to have to lower their premiums and provide better coverage. Or they can go out of business. I don't really care either way, but the market will figure it out. If the government plan sucks, people will stay with private insurers. That's the funny thing about the free market. People are free to make their own choices.
Okay, so here's a test. Can you spot the sentence in the paragraph above that explains how the government will be running your healthcare?
Yeah, me neither. The government will be competing to collect premium with the private insurance companies. We're all still going to be treated by doctors. Joe Biden is not going to be sticking a tongue depressor down your throat and asking you to say "Ahhh."
Paul Ryan, in all his wisdom, says
Government has a duty to secure [healthcare] rights, but this obligation is normally met most effectively by establishing the legal and economic conditions for free markets that expand the opportunity and prosperity of all. When markets apparently fail to meet these needs properly -- today's health care delivery is an example -- government should begin not by filling the need itself but by looking to and correcting its own interventions and making competitive free markets more effective.
Yeah, Congressman? Consider the public health insurance plan a way to make the competitive free market more effective. The government-run healthcare system is a boogey man.
Okay, so here's the part that gets me really, really angry.
Free citizens must avoid seeing themselves as passive victims of a government over which they have no control. Persons who assume the burden of responsibility for their actions, successes, and failures develop traits such as courage, fairness, initiative, charity, self-restraint, industriousness, enterprise, and above all prudence, the wisdom which directs each toward the right means needed to flourish as a mature person.
A very short description of the American character would be: this ensemble of moral qualities that make it possible for persons to live under self-restraint, without dependency, in personal relationships with others in community under God.
I've written before about my mother and her struggle with Alzheimer's, but until recently, I never really got into details about the story of my mother's life. Last week, I wrote about her healthcare story at Dagblog.
In that story, I spent a little time talking about how my mom and dad pretty much did everything right. The came from working class homes. They started out with nothing. They worked and saved and worked and saved. My mom went to school. My dad started his own business. They worked and saved and worked and saved some more.
Then, my mom got sick. She lost her job. She lost her insurance. My dad had to take care of her full time. For about eight years, they spent their savings on treatments and prescriptions and on getting by. After that, they were out of money. Once the disease started, there was no way back for my mom. But instead of spending the remaining years of her life happy and safe, first both my parents were desperately worried about how to survive. Then, my mom's brain was gone and my dad had to worry about it all on his own.
My mother lived on this earth and in this country for sixty-five years. She busted her ass to save enough money to make a comfortable middle class life for her family. She was courageous and fair. She had initiative. She showed charity and self-restraint and industriousness. She was enterprising. Above all, she was prudent and wise.
My mother had more American character in one hair on her head than Paul Ryan will ever have. So, fuck him. Fuck all of them. I don't want pity, concern, sympathy, or empathy. I want them to do their fucking jobs.
Healthcare reform needs to pass and it needs to pass now.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cross posted at www.dagblog.com.
Great post, Orlando. Those people are slugs. It's too bad that they have so much power.
Sorry your post is lost right now in Spammer Hell. If it doesn't move up, maybe you could repeat it tomorrow?
I don't know why the spamming is allowed to go on for so long. Somebody's asleep at the helm. . .
July 24, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post, Orlando. IMO, Ryan isn't the worst of the wacko-brigade. From what I've seen of him he accepts the terms of the health care debate - universal coverage and cost-controls, and actually knows some of the policy issues.
The thing about republicans is they just don't care about improving health care. They had eight years to try to do something about it and couldn't be bothered. I don't know why anyone thinks they're worth listening to now on a topic they clearly don't take seriously. They did their best to destroy what useful free-market mechanisms that were operative in the industry by hollowing out anti-trust policy, creating regional and local monopolies that then face no pricing constraints or incentives to improve productivity, reduce waste, etc. They just aren't true to their own principles. Their idea of the free market system is like calvinball - let the players make up their rules as they want. Fun to play as long as you're not killing people in the process...
July 24, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Orlando: I just finished reading your post at DagBlog. My heart aches for you, as it does for your mother and for your father.
I watched my grandmother's slow decline from Alzheimers' over about the same number of years. But there were two important differences between her situation and yours: 1) the disease did not kick in until my grandmother was already sixty-five and therefore already on Medicare; and, 2) because they had Medicare, they were able to stay in their own home for the duration, applying their own financial resources not to endless medical treatments and costly medications, but instead to a night nurse who provided physical and psychological relief for my grandfather.
As a self-made man who worked hard all his life, it would have surely killed my grandfather to give up everything he had worked for to satisfy the draconian requirements for Medicaid. And I can no more imagine him moving in with my parents than flying to the moon. I know he would have done it had it been necessary, but I am glad for his sake (as well as for my parents') that it was not required of any of them.
Even with those real advantages, however, such a long, heartbreaking process wore down both his fierce pride and his inner resources. Having completed his primary obligation, a week after my grandmother died, my grandfather got his hair cut, dressed himself in the suit he had designated for burial, and sat down in his rocking chair, to wait. He was discovered there in the morning, departed, though no longer depleted.
Orlando, I honor you for the personal role you've played in your family's long duress. I wish you and your dad real rest, and happier days ahead.
In the meantime, I'll be faxing demanding letters to Congress critters and Senators.
PS -- earlier on NPR, I heard that there are fewer and fewer jobs for new nurses... yet another corner in patient care courtesy of the insurance conglomerates who own the hospitals.
July 24, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, WW. I've been calling, faxing, and emailing, too. There are too many tragic stories, but even more than that, dealing with health insurance companies just trying to get regular health care paid for is a gigantic pain that keeps costing more and more. It's utterly ridiculous and the thought that the Republicans are against it because they don't want the Democrats to score a political victory? Well, that's malpractice.
Maybe we should file a class action suit and see where that gets us. They certainly aren't upholding their oath.
July 24, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
A class action suit -- very interesting idea. If it can work for irreparable damage due to tobacco use, and to asbestos exposure, why not for the damages suffered by millions who are denied timely and appropriate treatments due to lack of health insurance, or denied benefits????
I'm with you on this. Because the damages are obvious, only getting more numerous and worse.
July 24, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a bad idea, but I was actually suggesting a class action suit against Congress for gross malpractice.
July 24, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't find my copy of the U.S. Constitution at the moment, but what about a national referendum? Can we do that? That's what Switzerland did to get universal health care. The vote was nearly evenly split, but those in favor won and everyone has health care. When asked if anyone is ever bankrupted due to health problems they just look askance. The people originally opposed to it can't imagine it any other way.
July 24, 2009 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
That won't provide the redress you seek, but in the event health care reform fails or is inadequate, a national referendum, or the threat of one, might ensure something worthwhile is adopted. At least that would prevent people from suffering going forward. Little consolation for those who already have.
July 24, 2009 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
But for the overly aggressive title that may give someone predisposed to your argument but not already in agreement pause, I think you make an eloquent and fact-based rebuttal to Ryan's idiotic comments.
Further, I think your argument would resonate with republican moderates who are unfortunate enough to be stuck in a party where the fringe has control of the megaphone. I think more democrats need to use these sorts of straightforward responses to clearly illogical statements on behalf of GOP representatives.
At the end of the day, to create a truly sustainable system that gets broad support, we will need at least a little buy-in from those in the center-right of the political spectrum. Blogs like this one could go a long way toward that end.
July 24, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, it's an aggressive title. Add grief as a cap to 15 years of losing your mother a little more every day and see how rational you are when some pissant Congressman suggests that if only she'd had more self-restraint her life wouldn't have ended with such an utter lack of dignity.
I wrote the title and I meant it. Paul Ryan can suck it.
July 24, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not arguing Ryan's deserving to suck it nor your right to tell him to do so.
The larger point was the given a chance to convince people who may not already agree with you, sometimes a writer takes a little more care to not antagonize people on the way in the door. Unless you are just trying to preach to the choir. If so, then please carry on. It appeared from the text of the blog that you wanted to prompt a debate with people who may not be familiar with this guy and his tactics.
Changing minds sometimes requires a more even hand, despite your obviously tragic personal losses.
July 24, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geez, Jason. Next time be a little more condescending.
TPM is the choir. When I send letters to the editor of my local paper, rest assured I am more tempered. This, for me, is a space to vent.
July 24, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not trying to be condescending at all. Sorry if it came off that way. TPM may be the choir, but there are visitors in the pews who may be convinced by your arguments.
July 24, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yessiree . . . condescending?
Very very fine post here Orlando. Your personal travails with your parents are almost verbatim of what we went through with our folks. And they, as your folks I assume were people from the "Greatest Generation" so to speak.
It takes a winger like Ryan and his ilk to have the audacity to make known what he thinks makes an American as if no one else in the world has the capacity to understand a goddamn thing without their help...
Normal bullshit Rove talking points from the right, middle right and/or fringe...
It's kinda like being told by a wonderfully open and warm-hearted (?!?) progressive conservative right here in the Cafe, after I attempted to make a simple point and was told that my points were basically "...little piles of excrement..."
And then it devolved to "...you look like a total idiot..."
And then I was accused of having a "...ideologue mentality..."
And then came an out-of-left-field off-the-wall remark that I was being paid pushing an agenda of my "...puppet masters..."
But as I expected, when all else failed, lo-and-behold the wonderfully open and warm-hearted happy progressive conservative resorted to simply referring to me as "...an asshole..."
Oh well ... All water off a duck's back.
But boy o'boy ... Yessiree ... That's a real progressive conservative for ya...
Are these types of wingers the type of people to waste time on trying to convince them that the sun rises in the east?
. . . . NOPE!
They just wish for folks to swallow their bile and not upset their status quo ...
~OGD~
July 24, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a single thing in this inane screed is germane to what I actually wrote. You should really get a room with your obsession over my comments here at TPM and get it over with already. The chasing me from blog to blog is really getting to be a bit much, even for some as mentally unbalanced as you obviously are.
Or perhaps you could simply take a little responsibility for the part you had to play in the little out-of-context melodrama you just painted for the audience?
Here's another winner from the hit parade.
Maybe if you tried even an ounce of civility we could have conversation that didn't steadily devolve into the gutter. Instead, you are insulting and belittling from word one and the complain when I get pissed off after repeatedly correcting your misleading characterizations of my fairly straightforward points.
I can do this all day and twice as long on Sunday.
July 24, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's just add . . .
. . . . the latest wild-ass assertion to Mister Bluster's pile of, as he like to say "ad hominem" tripe...
From the wonderfully open and warm-hearted (?!?) progressive conservative right here in the Cafe:
And now the latest in the long list: "...mentally unbalanced as you obviously are..."
Calling Doctor Bluster... Doctor Bluster please pick up the white courtesy telephone... Stat!
Oh well ... Again ... All water off a duck's back.
But boy o'boy ... Yessiree ... That's a real progressive conservative for ya...
And I repeat... Are these types of wingers the type of people to waste time on trying to convince them that the sun rises in the east?
. . . . NOPE!
They just wish for folks to swallow their bile and not upset their status quo ...
~OGD~
July 25, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you print out your blog and mail it to him?
July 24, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The insurance industry is, in fact, hurting and laying off many, many people. See also:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/mslo.t01.htm
I've known many people laid off this year. These people were middle, not upper, class. So I think arguments for a public option should be able to be made without such statements. The profits being shown are for individuals gaming the system -- but not the companies in general. The clearer a picture we have of the general situation, the easier it is for the truth to win out.
July 24, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting stuff. Your chart lumps the insurance and the finance industries together, so I'm sure the financial sector meltdown has something to do with those numbers.
Also, my company is laying off people left and right, closing entire departments, and "reorganizing" not because they need to, but because they can. Unless they're lying on the quarterly profit statements, company profits have been trending upward for at least the past seven years.
July 24, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are the figures for Health Insurers alone? I am sure there is a drop in home insurance and other kinds of insurance and with the numbers of unemployed that have lost health insurance, it is reasonable that the health insurance business would have some loss of employees. Do you have figures on profit and loss?
July 24, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest that people look at both links I provided.
The real issue that many don't seem to understand (because they want to tar-and-feather private insurance companies?) is that the insurance companies aren't sailing smoothly along. As the economy melts down, and credit becomes due, and fiat currency gets a little dicey -- well, the insurance companies who have to take certain types of bets (like on municipal bonds, etc.) are going to be in a heap of trouble.
The state of California, which has 12% of the US population, is essentially in bankruptcy. Imagine the holders of their bonds -- and there were a lot of bonds out. Does that tell you anything? Some high priced execs might be doing okay, but the insurance industry is not "awash in cash" as the layoffs show.
July 24, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The health insurance industry certainly is if executive compensation is any indication. Just because they aren't solely to blame doesn't mean they are at all to blame.
July 24, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lost something in the negative tenses there, but I hope you understand what I was getting at. The health insurance industry isn't the only ones to blame but they remain a huge part of the problem.
July 24, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are laying off the middle class workers and yet they can still afford to pay a single executive $1.6 billion for a year's "work".
Hmph .... cry me a river for the fucking insurance companies. If the asshole had only taken $1 billion ... all those workers could still be employed. They are protecting their bottom-line profits and fat-cat salaries like they always do, by cutting jobs and making the remaining folks work twice as hard for the same pay. There's a difference between that and hurting.
July 25, 2009 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
From what I see going on in DC right now, it feels like a completely dysfunctional family that needs serious therapy. Big change, such as democratic majority and our new president along with economic distress and the need for major reforms... 'stress' can bring out the worst in people and is most likely to evoke 'acting out' one's fears.
I think 'we' have to be 'involved' and try to bring some maturity and wisdom to the issues at hand and let them know we are involved and we are not going anywhere. If we each do this with our reps and the heads of committees, white house, speaker of the house, and majority leader, 'we' can have an affect.
We can prioritize them but if we break it down it's not soooo many people that we need to follow and communicate with.
Great Post!
July 24, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Orlando, you said it all. Great ideas, and well-said! Brava -- and so sorry to hear about your mother.
July 24, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Terrific post. Needed to be published.
I hope you added your parent's story to the healthcare public option site.
As always Orlando, Appreciate. Rec'd.
July 24, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before this is all over, I keep hoping Obama will do or see to it a similiar TV program featuring the story of real people that he aired during the campaign. It was so very well received. Your story could very well be the leadin. Thank you Orlando for a truly excellent post.
July 24, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem of treating our economic and political systems as though they go hand in hand is a common one. There is nothing in our constitution, nothing in the declaration or anywhere else that requires we maintain unrestrained, laissez faire capitalism as our economic system. Our political system can work under any economic system. Conservatives hide and protect the inequity and injustice of raw capitalism by selling it as the necessary twin of democracy. What rubbish!
July 24, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somehow, I doubt he has room up there for much more, what with his brain taking up so much space.
July 24, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a pile of dramatic, self-admiring baloney!
1. "though healthcare falls into the inalienable right category, government shouldn't provide healthcare no more than it should build homes for its citizens"
- Ryan says nothing of the kind. Perhaps Orlando is incapable of understanding what it means. Or, more likely, Orlando simply decided to unload on the "bitches" and hide deliberate distortions behind the screaming, puffery, theatrics and the drama.
2. "That's not government running healthcare!"
- Done with unpacking (just a bit).
Nevermind the fact that the government is already running Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, VA, etc. Nevermind the fact that any self-respecting liberal has been screaming at the top of their lungs that this is the model that should be at the core of the "public option". Nevermind the fact that Obama himself said just YESTERDAY that federally-run Medicare costs are the biggest problem that will ruin this country.
4. "Let's review. People will get care when they need it, which will lead to people being healthier, which means they'll be more productive at work, which means business owners will make more money"
- Orlando should really review point 3, above, several times until it sinks into that angry little head.
(a) the problem of healthcare in this country is the underlying cost of treatment. As we have more and more elderly baby boomers, more people going to the doctor will have the effect of increasing costs further, not reducing them. Just for reference, there are 300 million people in this country. Only 46 million uninsured. Orlando must have really sucked at math, too, to believe increasing the pool by 46 million and reducing waste is going to magically reduce costs of care.
(b) Orlando's fury is predictably reserved for the insurance industry, of which health insurance is the worst of the worst, in comparison with others.
Of course, Orlando is NOT recommending to fix the existing regulations of the health insurance industry. OR to change regulations for the entire insurance industry combined. Any of which would seem to be the most obvious and the lowest cost solution to control the motherfuckers. Orlando doesn't do the obvious.
4. "Yeah, Congressman? Consider the public health insurance plan a way to make the competitive free market more effective. "
- Orlando talks here about the unknown, mysterious but really really necessary bill here, of course ("as I understand it" and "so far as I can tell")
What Orlando doesn't say that the current available draft of the bill allows the government to decide what procedures, medication and treatment to cover, instead of the insurance companies. That Obama already spoke about the "red pill and the blue pill" and about evil doctors ripping out your tonsils.
And once Orlando is done with the bitches and their asses, we have a genuinely touching, heart-felt story for conclusion about a woman, a mother, getting caught up in the government-regulated insurance system, that has been allowed by the rules to drop her coverage.
In the end, however, if you strip out all the puffery, pitchforks, lies and distortions, Orlando is left in perfect synchrony with Obama. Changing from "health care reform" to "health insurance reform" on cue, as if they're reading from the same teleprompter. Which was, of course, the point all along.
July 24, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever, Lalo.
Most of the 46 million uninsured people in this country aren't sick. If they can afford premiums, their contributions will help cover costs of the people with severe illness. Preventive care is cheap. For those that can't afford premiums, renvenue will be raised to cover them, which will also go into the pool of coverage. The government isn't going to be your doctor. Not today and not when you turn 65.
July 24, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Most of the 46 million uninsured people in this country aren't sick. If they can afford premiums, their contributions will help cover costs of the people with severe illness"
Aren't sick, can afford premiums, but have no health insurance. How do we fix that BIG PROBLEM?
Well, let's force EVERYONE into the public option, of course!
And yes, the government isn't going to be my doctor.
It will simply tell my dying mother that the "public option" will not cover her medication because it will only prolong her life by 6 months, which is below the government's cost/benefit analysis.
At least the government-regulated private insurance will be upfront and honest about it and not hide behind the "public good". And, of course, my mother will just drop dead for the sake of humankind.
Whatever, Orlando, keep fighting the bitches.
July 24, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Insurance companies don't make the same decisions already with regards to your dying mother? If you are going to object to something at least make it intellectually honest and in keeping with the actual facts at hand.
July 24, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Insurance companies are currently regulated by the government. There is no reason why the government couldn't have banned patient dumping half a century ago.
This same government that has managed the health insurance so brilliantly over the last few decades is now going to take it over - obviously to make it as good as it has made the DMV, another shining example of government at work.
I have a problem understanding the intellectual honesty of the argument where we accuse private health insurance of doing something we legally allow them to do.
Or the intellectual honesty of the argument where 300 million people will forced into a mandatory public option, just so that we can extend the "pool" to cover 46 million uninsured, many of whom aren't sick and can easily afford coverage.
And in keeping with the facts at hand, we'll do the same thing these evil companies are doing now (dump patients and deny coverage). But we will EXPLAIN it differently.
July 24, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is a different argument. I agree that health insurance should much more heavily regulated as a part of this legislation but to say that a strong public plan would amount to a government takeover of health care isn't in keeping with the actual facts on the table.
It also isn't in keeping with the outcomes of other industrialized nations who have made such changes. Setting up strawmen to knock down is hardly an affective means of reaching a consensus opinion on this matter nor does it advance the cause of reforming a system that is clearly on life-support as it is.
Approaching this with an All-or-Nothing attitude usually leads to nothing, which will be deadly to the long-term health of the country and the consequences that decline implies.
July 24, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
how is that a different argument???
Orlando's whole point is predicated on forcing people into the pool to solve the problem of pay for the people who are sick.
Under the current draft, only the grandfathered private plans would survive but you won't necessarily be able to switch from one to another when you change jobs or relocate.
Under the current plan, the doctors will be paid MORE if for every patient with public insurance than those with private insurance.
Under the current plan, the government will set up an advisory authority to decide what to cover, treatment, procedures and drugs, based on cost/benefit analysis.
Everything under the current draft is designed to do exactly what Orlando describes: coercing people to switch to the public option to increase the pool.
If this isn't a complete and total takeover, then what is?
July 24, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are misreading the current legislation with regards to the public plan, though I will agree that the legislation as a whole has a ton of holes that should be plugged before Obama signs it.
July 24, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I'm misreading anything, please point it out and I'll happily concede whatever I got wrong.
But I'm pretty sure I got the overall intent and principle right. And that's what I disagree with with:
taking a super expensive thing, that simply can no longer exist without cost-spreading insurance, and instead of fixing the reasons the costs are so high - to replace it with another insurance system, that will cost just as much or more and also enslave the entire population to the government.
July 24, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
But that isn't the legislation on the table, despite the original poster's hope for the eventual reform package.
Let's talk about the actual legislation and what it is missing, like substantive language with regards to our toxic food supply and inadequate drug regulatory agencies. Perhaps we can discuss how price controls will lead to hospital bills that aren't padded out the wazoo in the hopes of getting a fraction of the cost paid.
There are a lot of things we can talk about, but debating the mistaken impressions of this bill as if it were the actual bill seems a bit self defeating.
July 24, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
more erronious commentary; please provide links to these facts
July 25, 2009 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
A public option wouldn't be "mandatory"... hence the term "option."
July 25, 2009 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
intellectual honesty would require you to back up your factual assertions with links.
July 25, 2009 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, I didn't know there was a federal DMV.
Also, where are you getting your numbers? Are you getting your news from Glenn Beck? Don't mean to be a dick, but these are some pretty out-there assertions that don't match what people who seem reasonable/honest are saying.
Got a link? From the information I'm seeing, they've all but neutered the "public option" idea.
July 25, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Don't mean to be a dick"
- then don't be. But that wouldn't work in this post, would it?
Your link has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. It describes the political motions related to the size of the public option, not its existence.
In the comment to the "responsible blogger" johnnienohands, I posted links to the discussions bills from the House and the Senate, but that comment is still waiting to be approved by Orlando, who must be out somewhere, fighting the wealthy and those who are their bitches.
The current draft talks specifically about the Advisory Committee that will establish the minimum benefits coverage and recommend what typical coverage should include. It's a copy of NICE panel that exists in the UK, which is nothing other than a rationing board.
As for the public vs private insurance, the house bill (on page 16) describes the concept of grandfathered plans.
Only plans that exist on the day of this becoming law will be allowed to continue "as is". Such plans will not be allowed to accept new members, only keep existing ones.
Any new private plan created after this becomes law, will have to comply with Government-issued guidelines on coverage.
What does this mean?
For example, a current private plan that keeps its costs low by excluding smokers will not be allowed to enroll new members (non-smokers) unless it complies with the new coverage guidelines (and therefore increases its costs).
July 25, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo -- I have read your blogs for over a year and have bitten my tongue many times when I thought you were going beyond opinion into provocation.
But this time? Lalo, have a little respect. That's R-E-S-P-E-C-T..... just a little respect. Really.
July 24, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean a little more respect than Orlando has for Paul Ryan, the rich and their bitches?
July 24, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the issue here is that Orlando covers both a personal story and a political one. It's a general technique used by many (on both sides) to allow making assertions in the political one that are now more difficult to attack because of the personal one.
Orlando wrote passionately. So did Lalo.
July 24, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's okay, ww. I assure you Lalo did not upset me. There are many more important things to expend energy getting upset over. Lalo is entitled to his opinion about me. I have my own opinion about him.
July 24, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could you BE more creepy? This man has poured his heart out and shared wih us an honest emotion... a legitimate response under the circumstances, I might add. So where do you see "drama" and "theatrics" in the heartfelt ruminations of this particular individual? The only theatrics I've witnessed are the ones being played out on Capitol Hill, or otherwise by the B-rate actors in Congress who sit on the "conservative" side of the aisle.
July 25, 2009 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could you BE more creepy? This man has poured his heart out and shared wih us an honest emotion... a legitimate response under the circumstances, I might add. So where do you see "drama" and "theatrics" in the heartfelt ruminations of this particular individual? The only theatrics I've witnessed are the ones being played out on Capitol Hill, or otherwise by the B-rate actors in Congress who sit on the "conservative" side of the aisle.
July 25, 2009 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
good post, Orlando.
July 24, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well written and highly rec'd. Thanks for your insight and for sharing your mother's tragedy with the health care system. What a terrible pity. Thinking of you and your Dad.
July 24, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post!!!!!
July 24, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congressman Ryan is walking the party line.
To better understand the unfathomable policies of the right, I'm delving into George Lakoff's book, Don't Think Like an Elephant.
According to Lakoff, the foundation for current-day right-wing policy comes right out of James Dobson's Dare to Discipline. He began his investigation in 1994.
Here is a rather lengthy excerpt, but at least it explains where these people are coming from. It doesn't justify it -- it merely explains it.
This philosophy gives those on the right a license to turn their backs on those less fortunate than they. They have swallowed it whole, and embody it with pride.
To the Republican purist, it doesn't matter if someone works all his life and does everything right. If he falls on hard times, "the strict father" is not to meddle. God forbid one should be labeled a "do-gooder."
Understanding why nearly half the people in the country are willing to turn their backs on those less fortunate than they doesn't necessarily ease the pain and anger that arises from dealing with a callous, unbending system.
However, understanding their twisted view and its roots might give us the tools we need to outmaneuver them in our efforts to bring about the changes this country needs, especially with respect to health care. Those who have embraced this self-serving philosophy are not about to change unless they become victims of our unforgiving system, if then. Time really is of the essence.
I fervently believe knowledge is power. Maybe this little bit of insight will be helpful in fighting these intractable, misguided people.
Orlando, I'm sorry about what your parents endured, and understand your anger and frustration. I hope you've gained some solace in writing about it.
July 24, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Lackoff argues explicitly for the liberal vision of the world. What else could he be expected to say about anything conservative, except for what he says? If you really want to understand their twisted view and its roots, wouldn't you be better off with the source?
July 24, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Lalo, now that I know what it is -- at least according to Lakoff.
The thought of going to the library and checking out a book by Dobson is not a happy one. Reading one, even less so. I am not among the faithful, nor do I subscribe to the notion of a patriarchal society, so to step into a world that espouses both will be a challenge. There is a trap to reading only those things we agree with. I will, therefore, look to the source, as you say.
Thanks for the push into foreign and uncomfortable territory.
July 24, 2009 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh my my ... Dobson . . .
BTW -- George Lakoff knows his shit ... And that's what bothers Lalo ... Lakoff would break it off in Lalo if they had a face-to-face.
~OGD~
July 24, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was great, OGD. First big grin of the day -- and it's getting late! Thanks for that.
July 24, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just clicked on your link. Yikes! I thought your quote was satire. Not so. This is stuff from a different universe for me. I really don't if I could read something by someone so domineering and full of himself. Inflicting physical pain, not to mention emotional or psychological pain is just anathema to how I was raised. That's awful. A dog?
July 24, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's clear to me the writer was never the master to this dog. i was waiting for the part where siggie goes completely limp in an act of mock compliance.
July 25, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like you never had a dog if you find this scene somehow emblematic of dysfunction or the satire anything but hyperbole when describing what can feel like a Herculean struggle to make a willful dog obey. I am not saying a child should be raised the same way as a dog, but I do find this an odd quote to use in order to make a negative point about Dobson.
Based on the fact that he is comparing disciplining dogs to raising kids and uses a belt for at least one of those activities (probably both) makes me skeptical of his expertise in either, but this quote alone wouldn't make me dismiss the metaphor as being applicable to a kid who was out-of-control without reading the actual context in the book.
As you may have guessed, I was quite a willful teen and would not be surprised if my mom recognized that description in relation to some of the scraps we had during my turbulent adolescence.
I am not quite certain what the criticism is here with regards to the original comment other than to show that Dobson's writing style is rather dull.
July 24, 2009 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the laugh (with you), JEM!
The golden one is slipping us another decoy.
July 25, 2009 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why . . .
. . . don't you two get a motel?
You can even invite Lalo along and you can all sit by the pool and have your own private giggling verbal circle-jerk.
~OGD~
July 25, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to know where (if at all) Lalo draws the line since he seems to think everything should have a price. How much does he consider a human life to be worth ? $500.00 ? $1000.00 ? $10000.00 ?? Is a rich mans life worth more than a poor mans ? A mans life worth more than a woman's ?? A stock broker more than a farmer ?
How would he price the life of a child ?
How much does he thing happiness is worth ? Or joy or love or companionship ?
How about security ?
Oh and what about doctors and rescue paramedics. Are doctors worth more ? Rescue paramedics save lives in dangerous situations. Doctors do it in nice clean safe hospitals.
Since it is obvious to me that he knows the price of everything....and the value of nothing.
C
July 24, 2009 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Since it is obvious to me that he knows the price of everything....and the value of nothing."
Thank you... that about sums it up.
July 25, 2009 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your comment or question seems to be completly misguided or badly stated.
My point is, in fact, that under the public option there would be a Government authority that would decide the value of maintaining or not of a human life.
Where do you think the government will draw a line? And where do you draw it?
July 25, 2009 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
citation please, this is totally inaccurate.
July 25, 2009 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, I posted citations you clamor for but my comment is "held for approval" by the owner of this post, who clearly doesn't like distractions in the fight with the bitches.
July 25, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Responsible bloggers post citations WITH there factual assertions.
July 25, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice try, johnnie.
Whether or not you consider me a "reponsible blogger" matters to me just as much as whether or not you're living up to the role of the self-appointed links police.
July 25, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo, TPM doesn't have a "held for approval" function, so I don't know what you're talking about.
If you couldn't find any facts to back up your assrtions, it's okay to admit it.
July 25, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post Orlando. Thank you. That's my Mom and Dad too. It's is a great honor in life to have had the gift of parents who are so very sturdy and honest. It keeps the world in focus and well lit for everything that comes up in your life.
I was born and raised on a farm in Ryan's Wisconsin district. It hurts to know how he hurts the families in that area with his corporate profits ideology. There were plenty of his mind set in my High School. The halves and the halve mores who rationalized their lives of plenty on being better harder working people than anyone having trouble paying for their healthcare or loosing their job. These types are willfully ignorant of the benefits of a system like Canada, just a few miles up north from Ryan's district. The good side is that when Obama went to Green Bay to highlight the better care and lower costs found in the local healthcare economy. The common sense of good people wins out sometimes some places.
July 25, 2009 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks O for having the patience to break down Paul Ryan's idiotic arguments and for sharing your mom's health care story. I am hoping that those in Washington are listening to these stories. On a simple human level, it is unconscionable that we are a developed nation that has so much wealth and have 46 million people uninsured (not to mention those people that have horrible insurance "choices" and coverage that does not deliver when they need it to.
July 25, 2009 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wonderful post, but could you be a little less abusive about asses and assholes? After all, both of these perform useful functions, they help us elmiminate waste and toxins from our systems, when they function well they allow the oddest of us to be regular guys and gals, and were we intelligent enough to invent a way to capture it, they provide enough methane to power up a major city.
So lets all resolve not to compare Paul Ryan and his ilk to assholes or anything remotely connected to assholes. Wait. I take that back. Compare them to the Appendix: an evolutionary dead end, subject to infection and inflammation, and at that point subject to surgical intervention.
July 25, 2009 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
a wonderfully perceived thought
July 25, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I feel validated. Thankee kindly
July 25, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice!
July 25, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
See the Denver Post about all the crap we have to listen to regarding canada's healthcare system :
http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427
July 25, 2009 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
My parents forced me to read a book on growing up by James Dobson when I was a teenager. I have forgiven them.
July 25, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
*sigh* misplaced comment. I should just go back to bed.
July 25, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post Orlando. And thanks to by ohnocindymaxparsingthru for the Dobson & Lakoff info.
July 25, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Orlando, excellent post!
The only thing I have to add is about repuglicans and free markets. Naomi Klein's book, The Shock Doctrine, lays out (verbatium) the blueprint the GOP has been following ever since Friedman was able to get Chile and Argentina to accept his free market ideology in the 1970's and 1980's. Both economies went down the tubes in a heartbeat and neither have yet to rise above the ashes of the destructive force unleashed on them by the free market. In the documentary film she and Lewis produced in 2006, towards the end she quotes an anonymous note passed to her at the airport:
1. We are the mirror to look into.
2. The mistake to avoid.
3. Argentina is the waste that remains of a global country.
4. We are where the rest of the world is going.
Now take into account all the financial misery that the US public has been laden down with since 2000 and a pattern begins to emerge. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the repuglican's embrace of free market ideology is destroying the middle-class. C.E. Lewis said it best ... "
The safest road to hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. "
And the GOP is the contractor for this project.
July 25, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Golly Gee Whiz ... BeeJu . . .
You must have overlooked the memo from Lalo up-thread about the Grand Poobah's scheme to "...enslave the entire population to the government."
I saved it and placed it in my in-basket marked, Things That Go Bump in The Night.
~OGD~
July 26, 2009 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink