Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Health care reform is a moral issue
This is what I was trying to say in this post (see point #4 in the "opinions" section). He says it so much better than I did. I fall on the side of security I guess, but I also believe that with security will come increased vitality.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Knock-knock. Anybody home?
I happened to be home sick on Monday and found myself firmly planted on the couch in front of the TV when Oprah came on. It was Sarah Palin's big day in the sun. It was like passing a wreck on the highway. I couldn't not look.
The part of the interview that made me the maddest was when she blamed her disastrous Katie Couric interview on her handlers. She said they'd told her that it was going to be a casual, light mom-to-mom conversation, and they didn't really do any prep work with her. Hello?? You're the candidate for vice-president. You should have been prepped before you took the job! That's generally one of the qualities we look for in a vice-president, preparation. The "What magazines do you read?" question should have been an easy one. Reporters love to ask candidates that question. And Sarah Palin calling Katie Couric "the perky one?" Not just mean-girls snarky, but pot-kettle-black.
I also found it interesting (and infuriating) that she is still not able, months later, to offer a coherent reason for why she quit as Alaska's governor. Her stated reason was that she was a lame duck and knew she wasn't going to run for another term. OK, fine. So why did you quit again? She cannot communicate; she is nothing more than a talking point robot. And her talking points aren't even any good.
Why? Why on earth would anyone support her as a candidate for any office higher than PTA president?
The part of the interview that made me the maddest was when she blamed her disastrous Katie Couric interview on her handlers. She said they'd told her that it was going to be a casual, light mom-to-mom conversation, and they didn't really do any prep work with her. Hello?? You're the candidate for vice-president. You should have been prepped before you took the job! That's generally one of the qualities we look for in a vice-president, preparation. The "What magazines do you read?" question should have been an easy one. Reporters love to ask candidates that question. And Sarah Palin calling Katie Couric "the perky one?" Not just mean-girls snarky, but pot-kettle-black.
I also found it interesting (and infuriating) that she is still not able, months later, to offer a coherent reason for why she quit as Alaska's governor. Her stated reason was that she was a lame duck and knew she wasn't going to run for another term. OK, fine. So why did you quit again? She cannot communicate; she is nothing more than a talking point robot. And her talking points aren't even any good.
Why? Why on earth would anyone support her as a candidate for any office higher than PTA president?
Thursday, November 19, 2009
A good point
Gail Collins makes this excellent point in her column in the New York Times today:
Has anybody noticed that the people who darkly warn about government bureaucrats forcing insurance companies to cut back our coverage appear to be the same ones who just voted to force insurance companies to stop covering abortions? Where’s the sanctity of the marketplace when we really need it?
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
It's not about abortion
I'm spitting nails over the inclusion of abortion restrictions in the House version of health care reform. I think it was sneaky and dishonest.
Reforming our health care system and the question of whether or to what degree abortion should be restricted are two separate issues. It's my opinion that Reps. Stupak (a Democrat!!) and Pitts and those who supported the amendment stuck the abortion restrictions into the health care bill as a poison pill amendment. They didn't think they could derail health care reform using their ACTUAL objections, so they decided to try to kill it another way. There are plenty of people who have legitimate beefs with health care reform, and I think they should bring those concerns up. These things should be debated openly and fairly. You think health care reform is too expensive? That's a genuine concern. We should talk about that. We should talk about just how much it's going to cost as proposed, how it's going to get paid for, and what the alternatives might be.
The problem is, these conservative so-called Democrats and the Republicans who oppose health care reform are afraid their REAL concerns aren't that real afterall. They're afraid that if they get debated, the American people and members of Congress who are on the fence will decide health care reform is worth it in spite of the risks, and it will get passed.
So they stuck abortion in there. It's an issue with huge moral and religious implications, and one on which few people waver. It gives a lot of people who might otherwise support health care reform a reason to oppose it if restricting the right of women to choose abortion is part of the package.
I don't think they even hoped to impose new restrictions on abortion. I think this was a 100% cynical move, intended solely to derail health care reform. In the long-term, I'm sure they would like to restrict abortion, but this was a purely tactical move. This is the kind of thing that provides fuel for the "hate" side of my love-hate relationship with American politics.
Come on Senate, do the right thing. Pass real health care reform without restricting abortion, then stand up for it in conference.
Reforming our health care system and the question of whether or to what degree abortion should be restricted are two separate issues. It's my opinion that Reps. Stupak (a Democrat!!) and Pitts and those who supported the amendment stuck the abortion restrictions into the health care bill as a poison pill amendment. They didn't think they could derail health care reform using their ACTUAL objections, so they decided to try to kill it another way. There are plenty of people who have legitimate beefs with health care reform, and I think they should bring those concerns up. These things should be debated openly and fairly. You think health care reform is too expensive? That's a genuine concern. We should talk about that. We should talk about just how much it's going to cost as proposed, how it's going to get paid for, and what the alternatives might be.
The problem is, these conservative so-called Democrats and the Republicans who oppose health care reform are afraid their REAL concerns aren't that real afterall. They're afraid that if they get debated, the American people and members of Congress who are on the fence will decide health care reform is worth it in spite of the risks, and it will get passed.
So they stuck abortion in there. It's an issue with huge moral and religious implications, and one on which few people waver. It gives a lot of people who might otherwise support health care reform a reason to oppose it if restricting the right of women to choose abortion is part of the package.
I don't think they even hoped to impose new restrictions on abortion. I think this was a 100% cynical move, intended solely to derail health care reform. In the long-term, I'm sure they would like to restrict abortion, but this was a purely tactical move. This is the kind of thing that provides fuel for the "hate" side of my love-hate relationship with American politics.
Come on Senate, do the right thing. Pass real health care reform without restricting abortion, then stand up for it in conference.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Hypocrisy
A hypocrite is someone who says they're pro-life and means "I oppose abortion, but murdering doctors who perform abortions is OK." I'm not a student of the Bible, but I'm pretty sure it just says "Thou shalt not kill," not "Thou shalt not kill, except for people you don't like."
A hypocrite is someone who says the actions of Major Hasan at Fort Hood are evidence that Islam is a violent faith, yet doesn't apply the same standard to Scott Roeder (he's the Christian who murdered George Tiller).
A hypocrite is someone who says the actions of Major Hasan at Fort Hood are evidence that Islam is a violent faith, yet doesn't apply the same standard to Scott Roeder (he's the Christian who murdered George Tiller).
Health care reform
First, a few relevant facts:
1. No one is proposing a "government take-over of health care." At least none of the bills in Congress with traction are proposing this.
2. The bill passed by the House includes a public option. This would be a non-profit health insurance plan run by the government. People who need insurance could choose this option, or they could choose a plan offered by a private, for-profit health insurance company. Nobody would be required to drop the coverage they currently have and take the government option. People would pay premiums for the government option, and those who could not afford the premiums might qualify for financial assistance from the government.
3. There are no "death panels" in any of the bills pending in Congress. This is something that Caribou Barbie made up to scare people.
4. Under our current system, most health insurance companies operate in order to earn a profit for their executives and shareholders. This is why they exist. They do not exist in order to provide health care. That is simply the product they sell in order to make money.
5. Under current federal law, health insurance companies are exempt from the anti-trust laws. This means that they are legally permitted to operate as monopolies. They do not have to compete with one another. They can divvy up the states amongst themselves in order to avoid competition, pick and choose their "customers" and charge whatever they want. The reason that federal law prohibits monopolies in nearly every other industry is because they are bad for consumers.
6. The purpose of the public option is two-fold: (a) to offer a low-cost insurance option for people who currently do not have insurance because they can't afford it; and (b) to create competition among health insurance companies.
Now a few opinions on these facts (in the same order):
1. The people who shout about a "government take-over of health care" are either ill-informed or are deliberately trying to deceive the ill-informed. Read the bill, or at least read some unbiased summary of the bill. Don't take Rush or Sarah's word for anything, or Rachel or Ed's either, for that matter.
2. I'm going to say it again, a little louder: NOBODY WILL MAKE YOU GIVE UP YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE AND GO ON THE PUBLIC PLAN. The estimates on what percentage of the American public would initially be on the public plan are in the single digits.
3. Sarah is a liar and a dingbat, and she has set back the opportunities for women in national politics by decades. She is dangerous and must be stopped.
4. This is immoral, and America should be ashamed that this is what we offer our citizens.
5. I think that changing the anti-trust laws to remove the exemption for health insurance companies is a good idea too, but it would have to be done in combination with added regulation of the insurance companies and the addition of a public option in order to make a real difference.
6. If there's a lower-cost, high-quality option, don't you think most people would choose that? When the insurance companies start losing customers to the government plan, maybe they'll decide to lower their rates and provide a better product with better service in order to attract customers.
Last but not least, a suggestion:
If you oppose the health care reforms currently being considered, do some real research before you open your mouth. You don't sound very smart when you say, "Well, I talked to a European yesterday, and s/he was totally laughing at us for being so dumb as to consider a European-style government takeover of health care." (One hint why this doesn't sound smart: Europe is not a country.)
1. No one is proposing a "government take-over of health care." At least none of the bills in Congress with traction are proposing this.
2. The bill passed by the House includes a public option. This would be a non-profit health insurance plan run by the government. People who need insurance could choose this option, or they could choose a plan offered by a private, for-profit health insurance company. Nobody would be required to drop the coverage they currently have and take the government option. People would pay premiums for the government option, and those who could not afford the premiums might qualify for financial assistance from the government.
3. There are no "death panels" in any of the bills pending in Congress. This is something that Caribou Barbie made up to scare people.
4. Under our current system, most health insurance companies operate in order to earn a profit for their executives and shareholders. This is why they exist. They do not exist in order to provide health care. That is simply the product they sell in order to make money.
5. Under current federal law, health insurance companies are exempt from the anti-trust laws. This means that they are legally permitted to operate as monopolies. They do not have to compete with one another. They can divvy up the states amongst themselves in order to avoid competition, pick and choose their "customers" and charge whatever they want. The reason that federal law prohibits monopolies in nearly every other industry is because they are bad for consumers.
6. The purpose of the public option is two-fold: (a) to offer a low-cost insurance option for people who currently do not have insurance because they can't afford it; and (b) to create competition among health insurance companies.
Now a few opinions on these facts (in the same order):
1. The people who shout about a "government take-over of health care" are either ill-informed or are deliberately trying to deceive the ill-informed. Read the bill, or at least read some unbiased summary of the bill. Don't take Rush or Sarah's word for anything, or Rachel or Ed's either, for that matter.
2. I'm going to say it again, a little louder: NOBODY WILL MAKE YOU GIVE UP YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE AND GO ON THE PUBLIC PLAN. The estimates on what percentage of the American public would initially be on the public plan are in the single digits.
3. Sarah is a liar and a dingbat, and she has set back the opportunities for women in national politics by decades. She is dangerous and must be stopped.
4. This is immoral, and America should be ashamed that this is what we offer our citizens.
5. I think that changing the anti-trust laws to remove the exemption for health insurance companies is a good idea too, but it would have to be done in combination with added regulation of the insurance companies and the addition of a public option in order to make a real difference.
6. If there's a lower-cost, high-quality option, don't you think most people would choose that? When the insurance companies start losing customers to the government plan, maybe they'll decide to lower their rates and provide a better product with better service in order to attract customers.
Last but not least, a suggestion:
If you oppose the health care reforms currently being considered, do some real research before you open your mouth. You don't sound very smart when you say, "Well, I talked to a European yesterday, and s/he was totally laughing at us for being so dumb as to consider a European-style government takeover of health care." (One hint why this doesn't sound smart: Europe is not a country.)
Equality in California?
This initiative is circulating in California with hopes of landing on the November 2010 ballot. Do you think Californians could get it right, given a second chance?
The summary:
Repeals the current provision in California’s Constitution that states only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Provides that the initiative is not intended, and shall not be interpreted, to modify or change the curriculum in any school. Clarifies that the initiative is not intended, and shall not be interpreted, to mandate or require clergy of any church or religious institution to perform a service or duty inconsistent with his or her faith.
The summary:
Repeals the current provision in California’s Constitution that states only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Provides that the initiative is not intended, and shall not be interpreted, to modify or change the curriculum in any school. Clarifies that the initiative is not intended, and shall not be interpreted, to mandate or require clergy of any church or religious institution to perform a service or duty inconsistent with his or her faith.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
