How about that GOP health care reform plan? Which is (drumroll)...nada

Rather than trust what politicians say they'll do when they're in power, I trust what they actually do when they're actually in power.

The Republicans were actually in power--in control of both branches of Congress, the judiciary, and the executive branch--for six years. Plus control of Congress for six years before that, of the executive for two years after that, and of the judiciary for the foreseeable future.

During the six years they held sway over all, here's what they did to change our health care system: nothing. Except to engineer a massive unfunded giveaway to big pharma, of course.

So although I can think of better health care systems than the one the Democrats passed, this mild reform sure beats the Republicans' actual alternative: nothing. And no changes in our health care system is financially unsustainable, as economists of every stripe will tell you.
 
So I don't believe the Republicans' promises to reform health care better--not because I can read their minds, or because I don't like them, or because I object to their political philosophy. I don't believe them because they taught me not to when they were in power.

So our only choice is the Democrats' reform as is, or nothing if the Republicans regain control of all three branches of government, or some minor bipartisan tweaks under the current divided government.

One more think that reduces the Republicans' credibility--again without any comment on their stated party's political principles--is that reputable fact-checking organizations like politifact.com and factcheck.org have demonstrated repeatedly that the Democrats tell fibs about their plan while the Republicans tell ginormous whoppers about theirs--and about the Democrats' plan.

Republican friends tell me those factchecking sites must be in the pay of the Democrats. If they are the Democrats aren't getting their money's worth, because they rap the Democrats' knuckles constantly. There are no angels on this playing field. But the Republicans are far worse.

Their prevarication about the Congressional Budget Office is one outstanding symptom. Every time the CBO gives an analysis the GOP likes they quote it as gospel. Every time the CBO goes the other way they dismiss it. While the factchecking sites give the CBO a strong endorsement hedged with some cavils.

I consider myself an Eisenhower Republican, which means there's no place for me in today's Republican Party, so this liberal Republican had to become a conservative Democrat.

And for me the health care reform issue is just one more example of how the Republican Party cashed in its principles for tribal advantage--most egregiously by preaching atomism--that we have no responsibility for anyone else, and no one has responsibility for us, and anything else is socialism.

This is not how responsible people behave. Believing that we need to have each other's back isn't \"European socialism.\" It's a value that was preached on the American frontier by our ancestors.
Look at the values shown in the new film version of \"True Grit.\" Back then, \"government\" was the only thing standing between an honest citizen and the criminals who longed for lawless times where the gang with the most guns called the shots (so to speak). Little Mattie Ross stood for law and order and for social responsibility. Not the State running your life. Just making it safe enough for you got get to run your life.

While today's Republican Party--particularly in its stand against any real health care reform--stands for the morality of a selfish six year old boy who doesn't like to be told what to do, and calls nobody getting to tell you what to do \"freedom.\"

Real adults define freedom very differently. And those of us who get sick and can't get health care because of this philosophy of, well, selfishism, will find that their freedom just got taken away from them.

Tagging the libertarians

There were a lot of libertarian comments on Dana Milbanks' latest Washington Post blog entry, about the unwisdom of Republicans pinning their next campaign on repealing healthcare reform. It garnered hundreds of very snarky comments (right wingers appear to be in an unusually bad mood today), so I entered the following (and got a little snarky myself):


So our social safety net--now amped up slightly by this healthcare reform act--is an American tragedy, huh?

Meaning that since our safety net (even with the latest bill passing) is the skimpiest of any developed country..and since, apparently, the skimpier the safety net the more virile and successful a country is, ours must be doing the best, and a place like Germany or Sweden the worst.

Hmmm. I bet a lot of Germans and Swedes (including conservative ones) would find that pretty laughable.

But if you really believe that, I encourage you to move to a truly free enterprise capitalist country with no emasculating social safety net, where you can let your overwhelming manliness take wings and soar above the crowd.

I suggest the Philippines. I've been there a couple of times. Pure capitalism--and it's got a lot of American influence. So you all should feel right at home.

Go, now. Shoo!




Still here? You should have the courage of your convictions.

But as long as you insist on sticking around, explain me this:

How are you all such geniuses that you know better about the healthcare reform bill than The Economist?

You know, The Economist--the world's leading periodical devoted to free enterprise capitalism since 1843?

This week's issue endorsed voting for this healthcare reform act. Honestly, it's not their ideal way to do it. But all things considered, at this time, in this place, they recommended voting for it.

What do your towering intellects have to say to the editors of The Economist?

I can't wait.

What to say to opponents of healthcare reform

Claim: The Democrats' health care reform bill forces taxpayers to pay for abortion.

Answer: This is a lie. The bill actually reduces access to abortion. Which is one reason why associations representing 59,000 American Catholic nuns support it, along with the association of Catholic hospitals. And in fact pro-abortion rights activists are extremely disappointed by the bill's anti-abortion provisions. This is a case of doctrinaire Catholics and Fundamentalists being sore winners.

Claim: The Democrats' health care reform bill is a European Socialist government takeover of health care.

Answer: If so, then the Republicans are Socialists, because the bill that's about to be voted on is basically a rehash of the Republican healthcare bill that they proposed as an alternative to "Hillarycare" in 1993--which they quietly dropped in favor of nothing as soon as they go back in power. So it's actually the healthcare reform Republicans wanted before the Republican Party was taken over by wack jobs and corporate tools in 1994.

Claim: the Democrats' health care reform bill will cost American taxpayers a trillion dollars--we just can't afford it.

Answer: the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a nonpartisan institution that the Republicans frequently quote when its estimates favor them, said in their preliminary estimate released today...that the Democrats' health care bill will save taxpayers $1T in its first 20 years.

Claim: the Democrats' health care reform bill is wealth redistribution from the majority of Americans who are satisfied with their health care to bums and illegal immigrants.

Answer: the Democrats have emphasized the extension of health care to the many millions of Americans who now lack any kind of health care insurance. Although the original proposals included illegals, it now explicitly excludes them. And the rest do get free health care today--only they're charged enormous amounts by the hospitals, which are usually not paid, and the cost is then transferred to us, or they go bankrupt paying and we wind up on the hook for their welfare payments.

And despite the bill's backers emphasizing its altruistic aspects, there's a lot there for us from a selfish viewpoint.

Moreover, the bill has many provisions that will aid ordinary Americans who now have coverage. If you change your job and go to a small company and have a pre-existing medical condition, this will keep the health insurance companies from denying your new company coverage that includes you (or pricing so high as to be impractical). If you fall seriously ill, your health insurance company will no longer be able to rescind your coverage based on some error you may have made in filling out the forms a decade previously.

In other words, things that could easily--and routinely do--happen to people who think they have good health care coverage will be safe once the bill is passed.

Claim: the Democrat Party is using parliamentary tricks instead of putting it to a straight up or down vote. Those tricks are unconstitutional!

Answer: Well, if they are unconstitutional, the Supreme Court with its hard-right majority will promptly strike it down, so you not only have nothing to worry about, but you should let the Democrats pass it as quickly as possible so you can get that SCOTUS overturning judgment handed down before the next election.

Otherwise--the parliamentary tricks are ones the Republicans used routinely, dozens of times--even on financially significant legislation--when they were in power. Those "tricks" were approved by Republicans now complaining about them..when they were in power. Hypocrites much?

Let's talk about the Bible and abortion

The abortion debate has become the fulcrum of healthcare reform, so it's a good time to revisit the foundation of "pro-life" ideas: the Bible. Or is it?

Here's every place the word "abortion" appears in the Bible: [nada]

Here's what Christ said we should do about abortion, compared to the other things he told his followers to do: [nada]


So anti-abortion zealots who say they're Christians have placed their ideas above God's and Christ's.

Now the Bible does mention the one who put his ideas above God's: that's Satan.

Which makes anti-abortion zealots Satan worshipers pretending to be Christians.


PS: Anti-abortion zealots constantly state "life begins at conception." Biblically speaking this is unsupported nonsense.

It's what scientists believed in the 19th century. That's what a pope used at the time as the basis for this claim. But 21st century science has proven that this isn't so.

"Life begins at conception" is code language for "God gives us a soul at the moment of conception."

However, anti-abortion zealots don't like to be honest about what they're saying when they're not among fellow Satan worshipers. But if it isn't code words for ensoulment it's empty language, since your liver is also alive, but it doesn't have its own soul.

And we can't all be ensouled at the moment of conception because not all of us are formed at the moment of conception--particularly monozygotic twins and chimaeras--while other fertilized eggs aren't viable no matter how you slice it--so no loving God would ensoul them either.

Other fetuses are theoretically viable but the mother is unable to give birth to them without medical intervention--otherwise they'll die, often taking the mother with them.

So again a loving God would only ensoul such endangered fetuses in countries with universal health care, or whose mothers are wealthy.

Which means that the only religiously justifiable timing for ensoulment is the moment of viable birth--when the baby takes his first breath unaided--not the moment of conception.

But if you want to be strictly biblical, you'd move the goalpost to one month of age, since the Bible accords no status to infants until they reach that milestone.

You'd think people who are this passionate about the Bible would read it.

Looking at healthcare reform defeat

Today's New York Times' lead editorial urges the House to pass the Senate's healthcare reform bill. Here's my comment:

When Paul Krugman said the same thing a few days ago, most of the many comments posted by readers disagreed with this advice--both left wing and right wing.

The diatribes from the political left seemed to be written in total ignorance of what Americans outside of college towns think. And they seem to think Obama was made king of the country, able to make laws by snapping his fingers. The American presidency is closer to being an administrator with a bullhorn.

You know he wants a single payer system. You should know he's just as frustrated as you are by how far the Senate bill is from that. But he lives on this planet.

So it's the mild reforms of the Senate bill, or less, or nothing. Th-th-that's all, folks. And if we get nothing--which all this left-wing howling is helping guarantee--we'll probably get a Republican president in 2012. Followed by a 7-3 Supreme Court corporatist-activist majority. Want that? Keep it up. Karl Rove is cheering you on.

The diatribes from the right mostly assume that the American people are all against the total takeover of American healthcare by European socialist death panels.

Um, the Senate bill was never anything like a takeover, and the lobbyists who form the fourth branch of government have seen to it that it's even milder than it started. It's only socialisim in the sense that Rush Limbaugh and the rest have redefined "socialism" as "any kind of regulation whatsoever."

Of course total gummint takeover is just what the Healthcare Denial Industry has been spending over a million dollars a day to make Americans think Congress is cooking up.

Odd that the right wing comments on Krugman's op-ed piece never--not once--acknowledged that American public opinion has been molded by this $1.4M/day tidal wave of advertising, PR, whisper campaigns, sock puppet pundits and more--countered by a pathetic trickle of truth. I say truth because nearly every claim the Republican leadership has said about the Senate bill has been shown to be a baldfaced lie--according to rigorously nonpartisan fact checking organizations like www.factcheck.org and www.politifact.com.

I'm not saying Democratic leaders always tell the truth. They don't. And they've certainly been swayed by lobbying and by public opinion, despite that public opinion being based on well-financed, slickly disseminated lies.

But on healthcare reform the Democrats are saints next to the the Republicans.

I only take slight comfort from knowing that when healthcare reform is defeated by rigid left-wing idealists and foaming-at-the-mouth right wing nutjobs--many in both groups are going to wind up with their tails in a crack as a direct result of healthcare reform failing again.

I heard a caller on one right wing talk show say "I don't want to pay for someone else's pre-existing condition."

Wait'll it's you. And you wind up with one of those medical bankruptcies right wing nutjobs deny the existence of (along with all science whose findings they don't like).

It'll serve you right. So go ahead and gloat at the defeat Democrats are looking at now. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

Tell your House representative to endorse the Senate bill

Paul Krugman's latest NYT op-ed piece ("Do the right thing") proves that the right wing caricatures of him are just that: stupid caricatures. Now if only the House Democrats will man up and follow his sound, pragmatic advice.

To quote the Spanish saying, "Algo es mejor que nada" -- "Something is better than nothing." Because our only alternative to the Senate version is no healthcare reform for another generation. So don't let your congressman ride the Horse of Pride right off the cliff.

Anything but the Senate bill means the healthcare denial industry wins, along with their sock puppets in Congress, otherwise known as the Republican leadership. The Republican rank and file will think they're winning but they'll actually be losing. A small consolation if it turns out that way.

If you're trying to decide what to tell your Congressman, just read the right wing diatribes that will throng Krugman's comment thread. Look at their gloating contempt for you and everything Democrats stand for (or at least should stand for). They want the House Democrats either to blink and pass nothing or stiffen up and demand changes to the Senate bill--but either alternative will produce exactly the same result.

The healthcare denial industry is spending over a million dollars a day, every day, seven days a week, to flood the airwaves with lying propaganda that is working. This propaganda is backed up by a legion of self-aggrandizing, self-styled pundits and rightwing talk show hosts, all in lockstep with the healtcare denial industry's message du jour.

That message is that Obama is a European Socialist, every Democratic congressman is a European Socialist, and the mild healthcare reform of the Senate bill is actually a Soviet-style nationalization of the healthcare industry that will institute death panels to kill Grandma. You laugh. But half the electorate--that half that doesn't live where you do--believe all of this.

If you think we have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting anything better--just because you and your educated friends in your college town want something better--you're dreaming.

I want something better. I want France's healthcare system, OK? I want single payer. I want to see the CEOs of the health insurance companies on the streetcorner, in rags, selling apples. Or pulling oars in slave galleys.

But the universe repeatedly fails to reconfigure itself according to my desires. How about you?

Call your congressman and say "Pass the Senate Bill. Now. Do the people's work."

Healthcare reform isn't perfect!

New York Times liberal columnist Bob Herbert published an op-ed piece today saying "There is a middle-class tax time bomb ticking in the Senate’s version of President Obama’s effort to reform health care." I said:

...And yet equally liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman endorsed passing whatever highly flawed healthcare reform legislation emerges from Congress.

What's the difference between Herbert and Krugman? They're both equally liberal. Perhaps it's that Krugman is a distinguished economist and understands the big picture a little better than Herbert.

If this doesn't pass it's a good bet we'll get a Republican president in 2012, and given the age and health of the Supreme Court's less conservative minority, that ensures that an even farther right Supreme Court majority will be available to overturn progressive legislation and decide close elections in the GOP's favor for generations to come.

Moreover, healthcare reform, once passed, will be modifiable. Without passage of something, however flawed, the GOP sock puppets and their paymasters in Medicine-for-profit-Inc. will ensure that we won't get a second chance for another generation. They're already spending over a million dollars a day spreading breathtaking lies (according to www.factcheck.org and www.politifact.com), turning public opinion against reform.

So while Mr. Herbert's complaints may well be valid, considered by themselves, from a larger perspective, we absolutely need to pass healthcare reform, however flawed.

I've read scores of comments on these threads by liberal Democrats declaring that this shouldn't pass because it falls short of their dream (and mine), and that furthermore they won't support Obama next time around because he failed to..what? We didn't elect him king. An American president has very constrained powers compared to many other kinds of heads of state.

When President Palin is busy undoing EVERYTHING Obama accomplished and is putting us in an even deeper hole than Bush put us in...remember this moment and what your whirly-eyed idealism did to us.

www.blogzu.blogspot.com

PS: I've been tallying up comment threads like this on the NYT and WaPo, and either both newspapers' readers are overwhelmingly far right Republican--or non-readers (probably in both senses of the term) are showing up in these forums the same way they showed up at congressional townhall meetings--to shout down anyone they disagreed with and to make it seem like there were more people like them than there really are.

So as you peruse this thread, look for semiliterate broad-spectrum denunciations of Democrats in general and Obama/Pelosi/Reid in particular, frequent mentions of "socialism" and other red-faced hyperbole, and generally venemous tone. And look at yourself reading them--see how they try to suck you into off-topic sparring with them instead of actually talking about Herbert's column.

You must ignore them. It's hard, I know. But you should know that you can't change their minds--that would require minds to change. We must combat them, but not by talking to them. Independents with genuine concerns, yes. Republicans like David Brooks and David Gergen and Colin Powell, absolutely. Not the nutjobs, though. That's what they want.

===============================================

The NYTimes published 279 comments on Herbert's editorial. They deleted this one, though. Apparently it violated their terms, though for the life of me I can't figure out why. The vast, vast majority of the comments said Herbert was right and that healthcare reform resembling ther Senate or House bills should not pass. Most were liberals, but many righty-tighties also wrote in, saying they agreed with Herbert for the first time, then went on to make venemous disparaging comments about the president, all liberals and the congressional Democrats in particular.

I'm sorry "compromise" is so very difficult for people to understand.

I fear we'll get what these NYT readers are asking for: no healthcare reform at all, since it's currently impossible to get the kind they demand. And then we'll get President Palin.