I don’t know enough about the President’s health care plan to know whether I would support it. My first problem is that it hasn’t been sufficiently published for all to see, to read, to digest, to comprehend. Transparency isn’t what it used to be. Amidst the debate (?), much of the negative position falls flat as it ignores that existing health care is a nightmare, outrageously expensive and still leaving millions uncovered.
Going into the debate, there was consensus that what we have isn’t good and we need something else. The issue is what the “something else” should look like. The absurd television commercials appear to argue that the new plan will destroy democracy, and that we should stick with the wonders of what we’re already doing. That would be the system that gave rise to the need for change. I bet the folks who devise these ads are awfully thankful that most people aren’t adept at two-step thinking.
Yet, the latest approach to the health care plan, attack-dog disruption of town hall meetings of legislators to explain the plan and answer questions, may be the worst of all possible worlds. According to the New York Times, the disruption is the product of Republican neo-con organized attack by people who claim to be non-partisan, but are shown to be lying Republican party shills. Fox News, on the other hand, calls the disruptions “protests” that arose organically by disaffected Americans. Sarah Palin calls the plan “downright evil,” because it will “deny care to the neediest Americans.” The hooligans are, of course, deeply concerned for the neediest Americans.
Like most, the cost of health insurance troubles me. Unlike most, reimbursement rates are also a concern. And all this crap about denying “cutting edge” medical care upon demand to the “neediest American’s” is just a scam. The screamers couldn’t care less about needy anyone other than themselves. Anyone claiming otherwise is simply a liar.
Those who are busily screaming at their elected representatives claim that it’s they are merely exercising their First Amendment right to express their opinion about the health care plan. On the one hand, that’s true. They have a right to scream at their elected representatives. As much as one may wish they would choose not to exercise their right in this fashion, rights are rights. And while everyone is not entitled to an opinion, they are entitled to rights. There is no test of knowledge to possess rights; that only applies to opinions. Perhaps this is a glorious demonstration of the Constitution at work.
Unfortunately, it also serves to prevent the dissemination of information. From the “best practices” perspective, first learn the information, then scream bloody murder. The other way around just doesn’t do much to convince anyone else of the fact that your screams count for much. It does serve to remind that sheep will scream on cue, or that the disaffected will take up arms on subjects about which they know nothing or wally in misinformation.
The Obama administration has done little to make its case substantively, by providing more than vague rhetorical assurances that this is a viable plan. When a major shift in public policy, not to mention expense, is being proposed, it’s only fair that it be subject to serious scrutiny from all angles. As for me, hard information will go a lot farther than fuzzy speechifying. Only the USA Patriot Act was so critically important as to be worthy of blind passage.
Yet, the void is being filled by the quasi-organized hooligans who fill the seats and obey the command to scream and disrupt. This boomerang tactic may do more to awaken those who remember why we’re talking about health care in the first place, and boil the blood of those who may support the plan, or may not, based upon what it really means and really does. The screamers are stopping the rest from gathering the information necessary to decide.
Americans may not demand total accuracy from their politicians, but they surely don’t like it when a bunch of demagoguing jerks prevent them from learning anything. The screamers may awaken the sleeping giant in the middle of the political spectrum to two things. First, that they can’t stomach the forces in opposition who are responsible for denying the rest of us information upon which to form an opinion. Second, that the Republicans, who were soundly rejected in the last election as the party lacking any clue how to make life in America any better, remain clueless. This attack demonstrates an affinity for the negative with no positive ideas to offer. If it weren’t for bad ideas, they would have no ideas at all.
Left to its own devices, the Obama administration may well have fallen short on the health care plan, with the Blue Dogs troubled and the middle American scratching his head in confusion. The screamers have made their headlines, but haven’t persuaded anyone not already inclined to join them. What would be a shame is if this plan passed not because it was worthy, but because of the reaction to this incredibly stupid and unproductive tactic. The screamers will have lost, but that doesn’t mean that America will have won.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of astroturfing at these town halls but I can tell you there are a lot of folks that are there on their own that are not paid, nor representing a party, or even Republicans.
Why is it so hard for Obama, Nan Pelosi and Harry Reid to realize that there are “independant minded” who vehemently disagree with them? I guess they are used to disruptive protests only ever coming from the left. Except that in this case some of these protests are coming from the left, too.
Here is the House version of the bill in its current form.
Many politicians have claimed they should not have to read it in its entirety. That might be true if they are voting against it but not if for it. It’s approximately 220k words and at a 2nd grade level could be read in less than 40 hours.
There are provisions in there for subsidizing union healthcare, home visits by bureaucrats for expectant mothers, restrictions on individual investment, and more.
It’s enough to get me yelling good and loud but the point is taken, if there is to be a debate about this, then it should be debated and not shouted out and not rushed through.
That there are ignorant sheep who follow the lead of the manipulative opposition comes as no surprise. There can be no legitimate vehement disagreement until there is a legitimate basis for disagreement, not following TV commercials or easily digested regurgitation of talking points.
Bear in mind, I have not taken a position in favor or against this plan, but I do challenge the right to people to be ignorant and oppose it. You call them independent. I think they are anything but independent, but prefer to believe that of themselves to make themselves feel far less ignorant and ridiculous. That’s how Dunning-Kruger works.
And it’s no better whether ignorance come from the left or right. Arguing that the others guys are often ignorant doesn’t make this side less so. It’s a specious argument, the kind that appeals only to the ignorant. See how nicely these things fit together?
If there are specific issues withins an overarching bill that you find objectionable, then these should be the focus of disapproval. But unless you believe that millions of Americans should be without health care, or that most Americans should pay a multiple of their use to cover a handful who suck up the bulk of health care, or that one individual’s extraordinary care is worth denying regular care to hundreds of others, then you would likely want to see our current, failed system changed. And if so, to what?
It’s easy to claim you hate something in vague and meaningless terms. It’s easy to pick apart the other guy’s plan. So? What’s the alternative?
And yes, those who aren’t paid to be there, but are merely ignorant sheep who want to hate the Democrats, have decided to make sure that there is no thoughtful debate by disrupting it. You disagree with the tactic, but stand arm in arm those doing it? That’s a bit too disingenuous for my taste.
Well, I disagree with the tactic, but while I don’t stand arm-in-arm with those doing it — I’m for a single-payer system a la my other country — I can appreciate the deftness with which the ruling party is being out-organized.
From the POV of this radical moderate, the meta-dialogue from partisans on both sides (and not just in this) comes down to:
“Let’s discuss the issues, thoroughly and politely.” (Unspoken: but we, the bunch in power, get to implement our plans on any subject, while we’re discussing.
“Okay. You first.”
You won’t get an alternative from most of the opponents of the D’s plan — “Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?””
Is supporting the bill yet remaining ignorant of it any better than being against it? It seems far worse – especially given its current form. (Please note I’m not accusing you of being in favor of it here but there are millions who are who have neither read the bill nor understand it – including many in Congress.)
This would have been passed with little discussion or debate by hundreds ignorant of its content were it not for the millions of people (sheep?) shouting against it.
Now that there is time to argue it, it should be argued. I disagree with speakers at townhalls being shouted down. The “noise” was necessary prior to the recess though. Does the fact that I disagree with the tactic mean that I now must support the legislation?
This whole affair brings up some questions: How can people educate themselves and form an opinion if the information is not available for them to do so? What would the be consequences of waiting until it is law to oppose it then?
Nope. But who’s doing the screaming to stop people from hearing from their representatives and questioning/challenging them? That’s an important detail that can’t be ignored in the mix. I felt the same way about the USA Patriot Act, was approved two days after its introduction without anyone having read it. I’m sure you feel the same as I do about that.
On the other hand, we are a republic. We elect people to Congress to vote on our behalf. Not that I think it’s turned out to be a particularly great system, but it’s what we have. They need to know what they are voting on more so than we do. And if they vote for or against, and we disagree with their vote, we have a mechanism to deal with it. The point isn’t whether we know the intricacies of the law, but whether the people we’ve charged with voting on it do. Do they? Hard to say since we aren’t able to hear them speak. That would be because of all the noise.
The party who wins elections gets to do stuff. That’s largely the point to elections. Otherwise, winning wouldn’t be nearly so much fun.
According to my PDF reader there are 1017 pages to the bill. I have read a few sections and in order to understand them I had to read other documents. So reading the bill is much easier than reading and understanding the bill.
If someone were to tell me that there was a provision in the bill that would allow the federal government to force me to keep goats in my bathroom it would involve a lot of time and work to show that was not true.
Sure. And those folks who aren’t part of the party that won the election get to throw sand in the gears. Which is, historically, one of the things that parties out of power do, in this country, to get back into power.
Yes, the winner of elections does get to do stuff. Nothing stands in the way of the current party in power forcing this on the populace as they don’t need support from the other party to pass bills. Yet, they hesitate for fear of being sent to the minor leagues.
Attempts were made to do this before even the shouting matches could be held. No reasoned discussion, no opposing views heard. They failed. Now people are angry but on both sides. AJ Strata over at Stratasphere has a news report of a Democrat Representative from Georgia in todays entries, going off on a physician for daring to respectfully ask a healthcare question but not before tries to dissemble the response.
I to wish we could have intelligent discussion of the healthcare issue but neither the President or the Congress are familiar with the bill they are promoting, nor are most of the protestors. However, it seems many in the crowd, perhaps not the yellers, have more familiarity than the politicians tasked with voting on it. When your response is “the President has said..” when the logical consequence of the language in the proposed bill don’t support the President’s PR, you are not showing good representation. In any case, the elected representatives are getting notice that their principals are not happy with their agency on this matter and might be planning some changes when the contract comes up for review.
Polite discussion would be nice but that’s not politics.
I don’t have to read the details of the bill to oppose it. I HAVE read the U.S. Constitution (many times) and there is no provision in there that would permit the Federal government to have ANY role in healthcare. No, the Commerce Clause doesn’t do it.
The orchestrated disruption of townhall meetings combined with death threats against (Democratic) politicians and violent assault strikes me as shades of Sinclair Lewis.
If you haven’t read It Can’t Happen Here lately, now is a really good time.
Are you gonna stop there or are you gonna explain?
You could have saved me some bandwidth if you had just written, “I think Obama’s ugly. I wish he wasn’t, but he is.”
Wow, I was enjoying your blog until this post.
What a lot of contempt for Republicans and/or protesters.
“Hooligans”, “shills”, “clueless”? Maybe they have a valid argument, that you just don’t agree with. It seems really common that when a conservative doesn’t agree with a liberal something is wrong with them, or the are not compassionate or are racist (my favorite). How about there is just a difference of opinion?
NY Times just said that Repubs said organic protesters and Dems said astroturf. Only sign of astroturfing on repubs part is that a memo was circulated by what seems to be a small group.
Right Principles PAC was formed by Bob MacGuffie and four friends in 2008, and has taken in a whopping $5,017 and disbursed $1,777, according to its FEC filing.
“We’re just trying to shake this state up and make a difference up here,” MacGuffie told me during a telephone interview. He’s surprised at his elevation to national rabble-rouser by the Left.
[Ed. note: numerous links deleted for rules and stupidity.]
How can you tell people to be silent and listen to disseminated info, when the congressman admit that they haven’t even read the proposed bills? What is to listen to? That somehow everything will magically work out?
People are upset and shouting because they want their rep to know their position on the proposals.
And, no one can know what the plan is because the proposed bills are just a plan to have a committee/board decide who and what will be covered.
And I was enjoying your comment until it became painfully obvious that you’re a shill. Damn, you must be desperate to be working blawgs on the internet to cover your tracked. Next time, don’t use a GOP email address.
Sorry, I didn’t see this one earlier.
I’m not sure what there is that requires explication. The U.S. Constitution was not a general grant of authority to the Federal government. Rather, it was a grant of enumerated powers. Regulating health care was not of the powers assigned to the Federal government, therefore, under the plain language of the Constitution, any action by Congress in that area is ultra vires.
The Commerce Clause was inserted to preclude the existing (at that time) problem of states setting up customs stations at their borders. While it has been stretched far beyond its original intent, it does not provide a genuine basis for regulating health care (or a lot of other things it’s been used as an excuse to regulate. The war on ((some)) drugs is a perfect example. It took a constitutional amendment to create Prohibition, and rightly so. Absent a similar amendment, the Federal government has no intrinsic right to outlaw a substance.)
You may argue that the point is moot because we’ve allowed the usurpation to continue for so long that it is now part of the “accepted” notion of government; but what that argument really says is that the U.S. Constitution is no longer operative. If that is the case, then what authority does it have, other force majeur? Unfortunately, GWB was right when he said that it was “just a g**d****d piece of paper.”