Over the past few weeks we’ve seen two groups relentlessly duking it out over the future of US healthcare. One side is made up mostly of concerned Americans, republicans, the elderly, and folks who feel disenfranchised with our political system and the politicians they elected. The other side is made up of the Obama administration, liberal elitists, and your average run of the mill, entitlement minded, healthcare is a right, utopia loving democrats.
Obama originally wanted a vote to take place before the August Congressional recess on the massive 1000 page proposal. Luckily that didn’t take place, and as more facts, worries, information, and misinformation have been discussed, the tide has been turning away from the Obama public option plan. As the tide has been turning, so have the tactics used by the Obama administration to win support for the bill.
Initially there were a number of democratic leaders and talkers trying desperately to liken the health care protesters to ignorant partisans, anti-government radicals, and uninformed organizers beholden to special interest groups and insurance companies. In an unprecedented example of hypocrisy, these previously protest loving, anti-war zealots decided that disagreeing with Obama’s healthcare vision somehow rendered them anti-American and against any reform at all, and even against the benevolent government that they believe is there to take care of them. Well, the folks didn’t like that one bit. So the winds shifted just a bit, and through this shining example of our democratic system at work, a new tactic emerged. A tactic that is universally employed by the left……….the use of RACISM….
In a previous blog entitled “Tumultuous Behavior” I stated that we do not live in a post racial America now, nor will we ever until we reverse our liberal thinking and our out-of-date sense of victimhood. With that being said I wanted to provide some examples of high profile liberals in essence playing the race card against ANYONE who disagrees with them regarding the healthcare overhaul and their lack of support for it.
Here are just a few of the individuals on the left that think this debate against a government health insurance option is driven by racism: MSNBC commentator Ed Shultz. Pulitzer Prize winning editor Cynthia Tucker. Congressman from my home state John Dingell. The always opinionated Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman. Finally here’s a gem from MSNBC primetime commentator Keith Olbermann, when referring to the town hall protesters he said it is, “Blatant Racism no longer even hidden behind euphemisms.” Wow.
Now I might be just an average American, but where exactly does all this so-called racial antipathy come from? Even if it was real, what does it have to do with a debate on healthcare? What does it have to do with the likelihood of an incredible expansion of government? Do liberals honestly believe that you cannot differ with someone of a different race unless you are a racist? Do they really think that Craig Miller and the rest of the worried Americans at Arlen Specter’s recent townhall are scared of Obama the man, or are they scared of his policies? Or do they just choose to see everything through a racial prism that clouds the reality that most Americans are not racist but simply looking out for their own best interests.
I have lived in both small and large cities, and travelled enough to get the gist of what people care about. And it definitely is not what color skin our elected leaders have. That may actually be the last thing on their minds. People care about their pocket books, their safety, their families, their freedom, and their future. It is as though liberals believe our country is paralyzed by racial divisions that render it impossible to move forward. The sad truth in it all is that we have made unbelievable strides to break down racial barriers that have scarred our country and our people. The country we live in today is one that was unfathomable a mere 50 years ago. It’s as though liberals were actually born yesterday.
The latest tactic employed by the Obama administration amidst falling public support for his reform is targeted at the groups taking the largest and loudest stands against it. The elderly and the religious. Only time will tell whether or not they will be able to change the hearts and minds of these Americans, and be able to salvage support for the dying initiative.
In summary, I believe the prospect that the Democrats will push through this massive legislation without Republican or public support is very improbable. That is, unless the Obama administration has another tactic up their sleeve that wins Americans over in droves that works better than calling them anti-American, racists, or saying that it is their moral obligation…..
In reality, the tactic will have legs until more leaders (not punks with blogs) stand up against it. For every speech that Obama gives speaking of a color-blind America, there is another example of someone in his camp using race as a diversionary tactic. They did it against Hillary and McCain in the drive to the Presidency; and it continues as they try to push his initatives.
Racism does still exist. It is a problem. But to throw it in matter-of-factly into a debate about health care, it loses its value in heat of a political discussion. Nothing is more infurating (as I know you know) than debating policy online then being called a racist by someone who has never met you. I dont think Ive ever spoke to anyone on Huff Post without it getting to that point. WHY CANT I HATE EVERYONE EQUALLY!!
Haha, yes its a clear matter of different perceptions of the world. I have been in multiple discussions where i believe i am saying something rational or thoughful, only to get a response back from someone saying that im being hateful, bigotted, racist, etc. So the next question i ask is, am i irrational or are they? Considering the fact that conservatives/libertarians are MUCH more likely to seek out and read publications of differing opinion i think provides us with our answer…
While I’m not in favor of a bill that is over 1,000 pages long, and may well exceed 2,000 pages by the time Congressional and Senatorial staffers finish with it, it’s time to be agressive about health care reform.
Posturing is not going to do it. Criticism of the Obama administration will not do it, nor will 25,000 town hall meetings. What saddens me the most about this argument is half the discussion regarding health care issues are based on lies, riddles, half truths, and distortions, the meat of the issue is rarely mentioned.
The bottom line up front as many Sergeants Major are so fond of saying is this central issue. Insurance companies and drug manufacturers are being given a free pass, I rarely hear them mentioned. They are so rich, very rarely are they held to account. They are who so routinely screw the “little guy” whom develops a sickness which is expensive to treat. Then comes the attorneys, magic loop holes double talk etc.
Does anybody know how many lobbyists the insurance companies employ on K Street. Fifty percent of former politicians find work on K street, which now has a minimum starting salary of 300k a year. Max Baucus, a blue dog Democrat from Montana is especially beholden to lobbyists of every stripe. He has no constituency except big money. I say this by way of making a distinction between being a Democrat and a liberal which are two entirely different propositions.
Health care is a right! 45-48m uncovered in the richest nation in the world? A friggin abomination! Some of these Republican obstructionists that object to all Democrat sponsored legislation regardless of quality need to shut their pie holes and start crafting legislation. If you don’t like the bill, offer up an alternative. Oh yeah, something with some imagination based on something else besides tax incentives.
I’m also darned tired of Obama taking constant heat about garbage that was born within the Bush II administration, such as the TARP. If Bush and a few of his predecessors wouldn’t have gutted half our government agencies to a point of ineffectiveness, we might not be in this fix. News flash! carte blanche rights to big business are not the answer. And while we are on the subject when are the birthers going to acknowledge the existence of the birth cert and the corresponding birth announcement. You don’t like Obama, stand on some real issues versus wackadoodle conspiracy theories.
MacGregor, what is the basis of your assertion that conservatives and libertarians are more likely to seek out literature that covers opposing view points? Most Libertarians I know spend most of their time re-reading Ayn Rand novels. You know what’s really sad? Most of the decent Republicans are quitting. Senators like Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, because the Republican party is becoming intolerant of any diversity of ideas. Right Wing social conservatives with simplistic foreign policy beliefs, and a neo-liberal globalization outlook of Friedmans Chicago School of economics. The likes of which we’ve seen debunked in the grand Chile experiment in which we installed the dictator Augusto Pinochet.
Since you gentleman are so open to reading literature from the other side, might I suggest “The Wrecking Crew” How Conservatives Rule, by Thomas Frank. Any suggestions on what I might read that will shine some elicitive light on conservative theory? Gabe
Hmmm…
Most of the discussion is based on lies, riddles and half truths because that is all that’s out there. The 1000 zinger was impossible to interpret succinctly, even Obama couldnt provide THE plan without speaking in broad terms left to a million interpretations.
Why do you believe Health “Insurance” is a right? I dont understand where this belief comes from, and you cant give me the line of this is the greatest country in the world so why not. I also think your 45-58 m number of uninsured is skewed. If i have my figures correct, we are looking at a number of legitimately and continually ininsured of about 15-18 million for people, excluding the subjective “underinsured.” Nevertheless the number uninsurec is too high, and i believe we need some fixes to the system immediately as well. So on that we can agree.
I also agree with your assessment regarding the insurance and big pharma industry. We need to make sure there is a balance with objective fairness regarding industries that are necessities. But, there are a lot of unjust practices employed in not just these industries though, and the big problem people like me face is, we have to constantly fight against the radical change promoted by progressives and open faced socialists that inhibits our ability to discuss actual issues and actual ideas. Not to mention the systemic bias amongst the main stream media. Surely you can admit there is a bias. Its our ideas of how much govt intrusion will be best for us freedom loving americans that we differ on.
For your point on Bush, are you saying GW didnt expand our govt during his term? What do you mean by “gutted?” I was under the impression that one of the main criticisms against him was the WMD argument which was due to poor intelligence and communications amongst the myriad of agencies that were too large.
The “birthers” are too busy thinking in Stage 1. Even if he were not a citizen, then what? They need to let that go and focus on fighting the good fight; against big govt intrusion.
But where there are birthers on one side there are plenty of groups on the other side who are just as crazy.
As for seeking opposing views. There was a BYU study that found this to be true. The reasons behind this can definitely be debated, for example the sheer magnitude of left leaning publications (newspapers, tv, blogs, etc) is more prevalent which would almost force conservatives to read more opposing views. I tend to use common sense and past experiences to formulate my opinion since a “study” does not always mean much in and of itself. For example, since i am conservative, in nearly any debate of any subject i am put into a corner of fox news and rush limbaugh when i rarely watch or listen to either. I group Conservatives and Libertairans together as a reflection of my views.
Havent read “The Wrecking Crew” but have listened to him during a lengthy interview and found his ideas to be based on generalities and strawmen, not fully representative of non-institutional “conservatives”. I tend to stay away from conspiracy type writings on both sides. I will look into it more becuz i dont have any specifics right now.
Check out Newts book “Real Change.” He rails on his own party and outlines ideas for workable solutions to todays problems from a conservative point of view.
Macregor, The 45-48 million number does include the underinsured. Does it make sense to you that every member of Congress and the Senate enjoys an awesome plan at tax payer expense,(excluding Sharrod Brown, D. Ohio) but joe or josephine working man or woman does not have that same opportunity? I believe we have a responsibility to provide healthcare from a humanitarian aspect, as well as stewardship of tax payer dollars. You do realize that primary care needs addressed through emergency rooms cost a boat load of money right?
I’m not about big government, I’m about reformed and workable government. I champion government which is supposed to be representative of the constituency, not shoddy government that is representative of special interests. Yes I do hold both Dems and Repubs accountable, Jack Murtha as an example. I find the idea of working poor with no health care repugnant, especially if compared to a 600b-1t Iraq war bill, for what…..
There is a big difference between patriotism and nationalism. Let me ask you this question MacGregor. What do you find so patently offensive about a health care system administered under a Social Democratic system, as in France or Scandinavia, if the thing works. What about Japan? That is damn good health care without the waste and the stupid bells and whistles, that some of us spoiled americans think we need to have. Nurses that shave us for example.
I’m all for freedom. I’ll tell you what isn’t a policy that supports freedom. Unfettered capitalism, burgeoned by imperialism and neo-liberal economic policies which support Multi-National Corporations whom find ways to avoid paying taxes, and take full advantage of corporate tax law which was written to benefit them, as we busily export our manufacturing base overseas and supplant it with a tenuous economic foundation built on finance and service (mortgage securities etc.).
Now I can appreciate the Liberal social stance of most Libertarians. I also appreciate their leaning toward true fiscal conservatism. Hopefully they will put forth a candidate with the charisma and presence to garner a lot of votes. Bob Barr sure isn’t going to do the trick.
Do you favor a flat tax? This seems fair to me, as long as Corporate America is held to the fire come tax time. Remember the complaint of American revolutionaries was taxation without representation. Well, we have the representation now. I can understand people worrying about government intrusiveness. I don’t feel there will be many changes until there is a three party system and some campaign finance reform. Unfortunately Washington, and much of America has become a divisive place where the spirit of cooperation is hard to see in practice. Do you think Bush should have enacted tax cuts as Iraq kicked off?
Did you know that almost all media outlets are controlled by five large corporations? In particular General Electric. I don’t see any media outlets on regular t.v. that are worth a damn. I can’t stand Limbaugh, Beck, or Fox. I don’t mind Mark Levin. I’m not big on Olberman or Ed Schultz either. I do like listening to Thom Hartmann, although I’m not big on his Lockerbie bomber opinion
I will read Newt’s book within the next few weeks, and let you know what I think. Gabe
Gabe – First off, I appreciate you taking the time to share your dissenting opinion. I wont hit on all your points – maybe in time – but I just wanted to give you one thing to check out.
I know its fashionable to push the Republicans as the ‘Party of No’, but in reality they are just the ‘Party of No Power’ and the ‘Party of No Mainstream Coverage’. The Republicans offered a bill in the House before the Dems relased their latest version. Rep. Paul Ryan from WI was a leader in The Patients Choice Act. It may not have all the joys of a single-payer plan, but its reasonable, not as costly and doesnt reinvent the wheel. Read the long summary and powerpoint sometime so you can understand what a Republican plan would consist of beyond just tax incentives. I dont want people to go uncovered just as much as you do – but I think there is a better way to go about it than a federal plan that I feel will ultimately fail — not to mention the increased laziness and apathy that has the possibility to destroy great societies fostered by government handouts.
Check it out here: http://www.house.gov/ryan/healthcare/index.htm
PS. I dont think any of the 3 of us can be considered ‘birthers’. I wish they would not continue to be proped up in the media as a righteous example of conservatism. Even someone as uber-conservative as Ann Coulter has publically dismissed them as quacks.
I will check that link out. I’m not going to lie and pretend I have a degree in economics or a great understanding of the health care debate (though I do try). It doesn’t seem genuine to me that Mike Enzi and Charles Grassley, while allowed to supposedly be part of the solution, turn around and send mailouts to their voters assuring them they will support no bill. I read a 24 page report on current versions last night, and it was mind numbing. A doctor I know is on page 264 and currently he is against single payer. I am going to read the Gingrich book, as I mentioned to MacGregor. I’m also going to delve into some Libertarian economic philosophy, and see if I can get a more specific idea of the forces at hand. It currently seems to me that there needs to be an entity able to compete with the several large insurers that seem to have a semi-monopoly, and thereby stranglehold on providers and several politicians. I’m going to share a link that I feel underscores the lack of change, vis-a-vis foreign policy that has taken place. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts.http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175109/david_swanson_the_more_things_change
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175109/david_swanson_the_more_things_change
Gabe, thanks for taking the time to share your opinion. You guys have covered a lot and I don’t mean to change the subject because those are topics that should be ironed out. But I recently heard someone on fox business channel talking about the fundamental flaw in the health care/insurance debate, it that insurance was created to cover the disasters and and spread out the gigantic cost of a few over many. No other kind of insurance is designed to cover everything like in health care. Can you imagine oil changes and transmission flushes if our car company paid for them? To bring that argument closer to the subject look at health related cost not covered by insurance like laser eye surgery. The cost is actually going down for the consumer because they take their time and spend their money wisely creating that competitive market. In short it will be tough to keep cost down no matter what if each person isn’t worried about spending his own money.
Gabe,
To your recent points.
Including an “Underinsured” figure in discussing a public option does not help any cause since its very objective, especially considering some or many of our “underinsured” may be on par with other nations version of “insured.”
Your premise is also wrong because i believe everyone in this country has the same opportunity to prosper, or at least get a healthcare insurance plan they value. Of course there are exceptions. Remember nearly 90% of Americans are insured, and of that 90%, 80% plus like their coverage.
Also, the fact that hospitals must cover anyone who comes into the emergency only makes the point that we need to close our borders, something most libs are against. But thats an entirely diff debate, and i do understand that emergency room visitors w/o coverage do cost hospitals a lot of money. But so does dropping 40 million more people into the system that dont pay for it.
Next to answer you question, I am not necessarily against healthcare administered by a social democratic system, i just know its a pipe dream thinking it can work in the US. If any model would work it would be France, except they have their own slew of issues as well. Read this. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124958049241511735.html
Notice the part where it mentions the coverage of illegals. Can we do that with an esimated 12-20 million?
Also, thinking our system of 300+ million can compare to homogenous countries the size of MI is hardly a good selling point.
I just worry as im sure you do, that unleashing an entitlement in a country as large and complex as our is something that wont work as planned, and is something we will NEVER be able to turn around once given.
Next, im not exactly sure what your comment about freedom means. Everybody understands that unfettered capitalism is insane. Who was it that said, “Capitalism is the worst economic system a country can have, besides ALL the rest of them.”? Whoever it was realized what we both do.
Gabe,
Next, i am not sure about a flat tax, and i think a consumption tax is not realistic at this moment in time. A flat tax makes sense, but with the disparity of wealth we currently have, would badly hurt poor americans. I think we got it right for now with our progressive tax system, we just have to revise the tax code as well to make it much simpler.
Over the past two years i really believed/hoped a new party would be born, something of a conservativeish, libertarian, blue dog democratic mix, i honestly think that makes up about 70 percent of the country right now, but thats a pretty big idea.. Who knows though with the polarization we have today, it may come to that.
I realize there are some large media outifts that control most of everything, thats why im not beholden to any of them and go for as much of a mix as i can, but often times life gets in the way. What is your problem with Fox specifically? And if you say they are this radical right wing outlet ill know you dont watch them.. =) And curious, why do you hate Rush so much? I am really glad you also dont care for MSNBC commentators, the smugness arrogance factor there is off the charts. I value opinions with a rational tone. Dennis Prager is a great one, partisan yes, moderate on social issues somewhat, and very thoughtful. I prefer thinkers to yellers.
Also, looking forward to what you think of Newt’s book, i really like facts, most of them you cant argue with.
[…] 2009 when townhalls were erupting over Obamacare, the media did their best to label the protesters, amongst other things as racist, opposing the health care overhaul only because of the color of President Obama’s […]