The recent kerfuffle on the health care reform debate and the public option reminds me of an episode from the Clinton debate. This is not a déjà vu all over again memory (yet), but it does I think illustrate how completely remote from reality many of those on the Right in this debate are, and how completely beyond the parameters of sensible policy making compared to the rest of the world.
It must have been in the summer of 1993. Mrs Thatcher (not always my political role model) was on “This Week with David Brinkley” to encourage intervention in Bosnia (rightly in my view). George Will was one of the journalists on the panel to interview her, and he could not resist asking his political heroine to comment on the “healthcare debate we are having in our country” (over Hillary Clinton’s plans). Maggie replied by saying that it was not her place, as the former head of another country’s government, to comment on a purely domestic issue such as health care. What she could do, however, was simply state what her country’s health care system was. She then described how in Britain there was a state-run system of universal health care (the NHS), funded by taxpayers, in which everyone received health care according to need. The standard of health care provided by this system was, she said, very high and efficiently delivered. She then said that those who desired a higher level of care could also take out private health insurance on top of the taxes they paid to the government to fund the NHS. Maggie then proclaimed that this system worked very well and that she was proud of its success in providing quality health care to the British people.
George Will’s face was a picture. He was, as they say in Britain, gob-smacked. His heroine, his idol, Mrs Freemarket herself, had revealed herself to be – a supporter of, of, socialized medicine, a proud supporter, and hence a---socialist! Or at least that was what the stunned expression on his face seemed to suggest.
Now, Mrs Thatcher was no fool. No politician with any ambition to remain in office in Britain can claim that the NHS is NOT a good idea. There was, apparently, a Tory MEP (Member of the European Parliament) who derided the NHS recently, but the Tory (Conservative) leader, David Cameron, was quick to reiterate the 100% support of his party (the nearest Britain comes to a Republican Party) for the NHS (i.e. what is here called socialized medicine, or “single-payer”). British politics, and European politics generally, are that far to the Left of American politics that much of the Republican agenda just baffles even Conservatives. Nevertheless, I do not think that Mrs Thatcher was being merely political in proclaiming her support for the British system.
Instead I am prepared to believe that she actually supported what she, after all, had helped to shape for over ten years, which was a dual-public/private health care system. The British system in that sense is more of a compromise than the Canadian system, because it does allow for private health insurance alongside the NHS.
This has not been uncontroversial—there are many accusations that the private health system in Britain piggybacks on the public system, and there are always questions about how resources should be distributed, and what right doctors acting privately should have to used public facilities etc. There is always talk and grumbling about the NHS not providing enough health care fast enough or efficiently enough. Nevertheless, the British system, overall, is remarkably efficient. It provides, as a right, universal health care to all British citizens, and it provides it at a level (according to health care indexes) at or above the American level, at about half the price--as a percentage of GDP. Given that British GDP is lower per capita than American GDP, this means that the British get the same level of health care at less than half the cost per person.
The British system also offers some pointers to another question roiling the American debate at the moment: whether private insurance would survive in the face of a “public option”. This has all been hyped beyond any reasonable level, of course, by health insurance companies afraid of losing their obscene profits and having to make do with just reasonable ones. The extent to which a public option could or would undercut private insurance would be limited by the amount of capital the government would be prepared to sink in to the government entity that would do the negotiating and managing for the public option, and that is all open to negotiation. Any public option would be puny relative to a system like in Britain where the government system is the dominant payer(/player). But the lesson from Britain should be heartening for private insurance companies and their free-market supporters, because, despite the fact that the British government has invested billions of pounds in the NHS over the decades, there is still a healthy demand for private health insurance. Why? Because people who have the money do not fancy sharing a room with other patients, or they do not want to wait for their procedure, or they have an aversion to public institutions, or they simply want to pay for the added convenience and comfort that private medicine offers in Britain. It might also be the case that the for-profit health insurance industry in Britain is less ossified in its structures and has more incentive to be efficient, and can therefore provide a better product than the NHS. Whatever the reason, private insurance prospers despite the apparent dominance of the NHS. So it is a myth to think that a public option will wipe out the competition—is not the private sector supposed to deliver the goods more efficiently than government in any case?
The health insurance industry should have the courage of its convictions and see what happens with a public option. If private insurance really is more efficient in delivery and cost terms then it will be able to keep the public option as a small provider of health care of last resort. Only if the claim to the superiority of the private sector turns out to be a myth, and the industry’s huge profits turn out to have been a result of monopolistic or oligopolistic practices (sweet deals and exclusion of competition) will thre be any threat to the survival of the health insurance industry. And surely we don’t believe either of those things, do we?
BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE
GOP Underestimates Conservative America
While President Obama is going about his valiant and statesman-like attempt to rescue America and restore our image at home and abroad, the GOP's politics as usual, diehard operatives are acting like spoiled brats determined to undermine the president's–and America's–effort. But in their blind attempt to regain power they seem to have forgotten one important fact–the vast majority of true conservatives are fiercely loyal Americans, and don't share their view of power at any cost.
If it's not apparent to you, you're not paying attention. The republican agenda, and philosophy of most modern American conservatives, is based entirely in response to new deal democrats. Oooh they hate us sooo much. How dare we force hard working executives to give back to those free-loaders down on the line. That's why they pick the Sarah Palins when a women loses, and Michael Steele when a black man wins. And this response has created a party that is disgustingly disillusioned, and dangerous to a progressive future.
Modern conservative thought flies in the face of all established belief amongst the greatest thinkers in history, including the lord of the religion they claim to follow. Jesus, Buddha, Mohamed, and Confucius; all agree that the way to an enlightened society is to strive for something bigger than ourselves.
To believe their mindless babble a conservative must go to great lengths to justify their greed and heartlessness. Lindsay Graham hates earmarks but uses them frequently. Rush Limbaugh has been divorced twice but rails in defense of marriage's sanctity. Gay bashers are gay. And worthless bank executives foreclose on thousands of homes but coming running when the hammer's coming down on them.
They don't stand for personal responsibility. They just don't want to be responsible for YOU. They don't stand up for smaller government. They don't want government helping the poor. They think poor is by choice and they are certainly not giving up their hard-earned money to help out those bums on main street. And for all their professed patriotism, they sure do seem close to secession... again.
I fear your revolution, patriot. You revolt against the brotherhood of man. Your is a reformation against knowledge. Your cause is self-interest, and your enemy is the universal right to the pursuit of happiness.
To the conservative it is a sin for companies to sacrifice a little short term profit to provide a quality product at a decent price. That's disloyal to the shareholders. Teachers are only in it to put forth a liberal agenda. Artists create works for the money. And unions should shut up and take pay cuts when the companies going bad, but executives need us to stand up for their contracts when they run it into the ground. Oh, wait, most house republicans ended up voting to tax the contracts anyway.
The neocon transformers want us liberals to be their bogeyman. They want to scare you with stories of socialism. But we will not apologize for a literate society, a 70 year life span, a car in every garage, and highways from New York, to San Francisco, and even to Freedom, Ohio. We take pride in Universal Suffrage, and we relish in the scientific revolution. Liberal spending put a man on the moon and it will one day mine asteroids and explore deep space. And we will not back down from that.
How low can Limgbaugh go?
If you don't know what Limbaugh said at CPAC, check it out and be an informed political participant, rather than taking the easy, "I hate Rush," approach: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qtvtBGWgBc Know what you're talking about. Don't be one of the uninformed Liberals so effectively skewered by Limbaugh.
Henry M
KCUF, 128 Kb/s on Shoutcast Unlimited: http://tinyurl.com/kcuf-on-shoutcast-limited/ to play, http://www.urdomain.us/playing.html to see what's playing, and now available on RECIVA Internet-Radio receivers, http://tinyurl.com/kcuf-on-reciva
BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE The Assassination CartoonI’m all for freedom of speech, but there are limits. Along with freedom comes responsibility, and the New York Post demonstrated the complete absence of responsibility with the publication of their cartoon depicting the assassination of the President of the United States.While freedom of speech and expression are indeed a cornerstone of American democracy, it is against the law to shout “fire” in a crowded theater–and with good reason. It is necessary for a free society to protect itself from those who don’t have the common sense to recognize that what they consider funny, or a practical joke, can get people killed. Thus, even in a free society it is sometimes necessary to jail a free citizen for behavior that amounts to criminal stupidity. While I’m not an attorney, I think they call it criminal negligence.
Cable news and right wing blogs are swarming with the revisionist history on the New Deal. Arm yourself against lies, spin and propaganda by reading info from a number of sources.
Here down a article about this topic. [Media Matters is a progressive media watchdog and fact checking organization which has received accolades from numerous sources (except the right wing media which often gets debunked by Media Matters).]
The link to digg it and for article: Conservatives Cherry-Pick 1930s Unemployment Figures
Summary: Columnists Mona Charen and George Will continued a trend among conservative media of responding to comparisons between the current economic situation and that of the 1930s and between Barack Obama and FDR by attacking the New Deal. In separate columns, both Charen and Will cherry-picked unemployment figures to assert that the New Deal did not reduce unemployment. But historians and progressive economists have noted that unemployment fell every year of the New Deal except during the 1937-38 recession; further, Nobel-laureate Paul Krugman has said it was a reversal of New Deal policies, not a continuance of them, that contributed to rising unemployment in 1937 and 1938.
Yes we can! Best wishes, Steffen
http://changeforbetterworld.blogspot.com/2009/01/my-way-to-say-goodbye-to-neocons-bush.html
Formal Petition to Attorney General-Designate Eric Holder to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute any and all government officials who have participated in War Crimes.
Let's use the member of campaign of change to help Obama and get the change.
Stimulus Bill negotiations reveals want Conservative are really troubled by. They say “to much wasteful spending” is the problem, here’s their idea of wasteful spending; education, infrastructure and not enough tax cuts. Really, education is wasteful?
No the problem with conservatives is the idea of educational reform. Given the fact that, for centuries myths have been maintained which say, African American children can’t learn as quickly as other ethnic groups, based on the idea of poverty. Providing funding to improve the ideological structure and system of education would finally dismantle this belief, which was created solely for the purpose of maintaining the idea of superiority.
Infrastructure would provide jobs for all Americans; there goes poverty levels. With this happening, myths that portray African Americans as “not wanting to work” lacking skills and all other ridicules notions created throughout the centuries would dismantle. Tax cuts as we all know, benefit those in the highest tax bracket, no need to explain further.
The ultimate problem conservatives are having with the Stimulus Package is from Whom the Package comes. This reveals itself by the spins; “suit jackets should be worn in the Oval Office”, “his arrogance”, and so on…
Agreeing with this particular President is too painful for conservatives. Passing the Stimulus packet would be a form of agreement, if agreement is reached, realization would set in, this realization would force Conservatives to face society as it really is; changing.
...Contact: Alex.Karoub@gmail.com
While campaigning before the election, I found in speaking with many fellow Americans that each had handfuls of reasons to vote for Barack Obama. Some had two or three major reasons to vote for him, while a few just did not like the condition of the economy or the Iraq war. By far the majority of Democrats had many reasons to vote for Obama; the number of people who were well versed on the many issues that Obama stood for surprised me. Nice to see how well educated the public became about the election and the candidates. It was a great election!Most Conservatives that I discussed the election choices with had a couple of common interests - 1) most had a fear of change and 2) self-preservation of greed, as their primary concerns. Although they did not initially express it in those terms, that is what further relaxed conversations revealed. In letting those to the right speak their minds, without worry of objection, they soon direct the conversation to money and their strong desires to control others/society by its use.
Many traditional Repulicans were embarrassed by Palin, some voted for Obama as a result. Shockingly, a few actually rallied for Palin; when asked why, their answers were often as empty as Palin's head. I think of those as 'Blind Followers' or 'Followers of Followers', people without substance. Some actually thought of it as a beauty contest, rather than taking the seriousness of her being a potential President in an emergency, shallow. You will enjoy my other blog that is light hearted titled: 'What is Palin?' Or, read my more serious blog: 'Libertarianism, a driving force at the top of the Republican Party'.
OLD APHORISMS THAT CHANGED IN THE LAST 8 YEARS
A few cliches seem to have taken a turn for the worse over the recent past, and have become more pretentious. Keep in mind, the majority of people use the first cliche in sincere and good meaning. The second never was very good, although some conservatives actually live by it. Below are just two which a few people have given new twists to in meaning:
'I give back to the community' - Well, if they didn't grab it so greedily in the first place, there wouldn't be such a need for them to give small token drops of it back. They think giving back makes them ‘absolved of their sins’. 'America, love it or leave it' - In looking at what the wealthiest and most conservative have done, we see some are actually leaving America. First we see a couple of decades back that many major portions of corporations have moved overseas, to now seeing billionaires grab their stashes and actually move completely to other countries. While others (pretending to be Democrats) have taken on second citizenship’s / bank accounts and remote fat legged residences for themselves. They hide from their realities and surround themselves with other fakes of the like, catered to in pretentious princess like surroundings, socially stuffing themselves with cerebral bon-bons and cream puffs.
I initially noticed those mentalities in my younger years as I describe further in my post titled “The Auto Industry, a few of my experiences”.
