Free to die

Am I joking? Well of course that dent in my cheek is from my tongue being there for so long. I'm nearly always joking, but sometimes the joke is serious. Sometimes the joke is much more laughable than anything I can make up.

You know, when I pay money to Blue Cross, unless I'm sick, all that money goes to pay other people's bills. They can decide whether to pay mine or not, so to an extent they decide whether I'm free to live or die and the deciding factor has much to do with how much money they want to make. I don't sit on the board of directors I can't influence the decision even if my medical condition gives me time to try. Call my congressman who depends on the largess of some HMO? Yes, I'm joking there too. No, under our great system we call freedom, I either cough up the cash or I'm free to die and thanks to the Bush family values, I probably can't file for bankruptcy protection against corporate leg breakers.

Why the holy hell is America so in love with that, that they won't consider a better safer and cheaper alternative? The answer is the real joke here -- because of corporate mind control and political lobbying that we also pay for with our insurance premiums: because we're trained to bark like Pavlov's dogs when Glenn Beck says "Socialism" when some bumper sticker mocks "Obamacare."

I get taxed big time to educate other people's children. If there's a benefit to me, it's not a direct, immediate one, but it's a benefit because the country's survival depends on it. ( note to self - they're trying to get rid of public education too) If I get taxed to pay for other people's medical expenses, there's a more direct benefit to me because although I'm not going back to first grade, I am going to die sooner or later and I'd prefer it to be later if you don't mind too much.

The cheapest and most efficient way of providing health care is through single payer government administered insurance like our VA system provides. Anything else is something less.

But OK, I'm joking, sure -- but you know, the real joke is that we hate the concept of government so much we'll ignore that a healthy nation is in the public interest as much as a literate nation and an invasion-proof nation. The joke is that we hate the reality of civilization so much we'll spend more to stay alive even as our civilization fades, our competitiveness wanes and even if we, our countrymen and their children die unnecessarily and prematurely in the process.

And seriously, the attitude that every man is for himself and what's mine is mine is what freedom is about, is a sick and malignant joke and an idea with no history of success. The idea that I benefit from civilization but owe nothing for its upkeep is a tragic joke well worthy of being an epitaph.

That we worry more about company profits for others than about giving our children a chance to grow up means something ugly about America and about Americans, and the older I get, the more of a sick, mean spirited, ugly old whore my country seems.

The constitution disallows it? The constitution declares itself to be there to "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Is being on your own, helpless and hapless in an uncaring wilderness and at the greedy whim of some businessman really liberty? Is it civilization? So the libertarians and corporate fascists insist. That's a joke. Laugh if you can.

We justify a massive military to protect us from something less certain than disease and we won't justify spending less money than we spend now to protect us against what the army can't because spending less is spending too much? That's a better joke than I can make. That's a joke worthy of Mr. Beck who now is telling us that if the government can take poison of grocery shelves, they can control our lives. Are you laughing yet?

Who is the joker when we hear that your kid has to die in the interests of my "financial liberty" to spend every damned penny I make for my own benefit alone and maximize my corporate dividends without any thought to the responsibilities of civilization and its maintenance?

Who is perverting the concept of liberty by telling us a sick and helpless man is "free" because he can't afford medicine - that he can't work because he's sick and can't get well because he can't work? Well, I guess it's me if you listen to the Libertarian flim-flam about "Obamacare."

Yeah, it's all a joke and the punch line is some kid with leukemia condemned to die because his dad lost his job to India so that some corporation could make more money. Somehow, I'm not laughing. Somehow I'm angry as hell. I don't know about you.

Inglorious bastards

I never thought the Confederacy would take health insurance reform lying down; accept it any more than they willingly endured integration, voting rights for women or their former slaves, equal rights and opportunities for "cullids" and Jee-Yews and anything else that interfered with good, old fashioned, plantation feudalism. They're against anything those Yankees do even if in the long run insurance companies will profit from it and undoubtedly show their gratitude to the Gucci shod rebels in Tallahassee and other red state Capitals.

Even though the ten thousand or so of my county's uninsured residents that now overwhelm the capacity of community outpatient clinics and emergency rooms are a liability and expense to me similar to uninsured motorists, the former are victims of Northern aggression while the latter do need to be forced to have liability insurance. Why? Well because a Yankee Democrat proposed it and Democrats did some of what the public elected them to do.

OK, it's not quite a volley of cannon fire at Fort Sumter yet, but that was then and today's attacks on the concept that the government has any function beyond shocking and awing third world countries and keeping the slaves in line are more insidious. What else would you call slipping a rider into an innocuous and popular Life Insurance bill that declares the new Federal Health Insurance legislation unconstitutional. I know, I know, that's hardly the job of the Florida Legislature, the same distinguished body of statesmen who last year balked at adding an exclusion to a bill outlawing the observation of and participation in animal sex if it was for purposes of animal husbandry, because -- wait for this -- some Representatives thought animal husbandry referred to women marrying animals. But the spirit of Southern freedom isn't about the government standing up for freedom, it's about leaving us alone in our fantasy of primitive self sufficiency where we can do as we please and damn everyone else.

Likewise the protection against being discriminated against by health insurers and protection against the public's indirect funding of health care for the uninsured must be about

"defending the rights of individuals"

as Rep. Ryan Nelson, R-Apopka told those assembled representatives of Florida Crackers, Swamp rats and toothless road-kill eaters called the Florida House of Representatives.

"every person within this state is and shall be free from governmental intrusion" in selecting health insurance coverage,

says the amendment. What nasty things might escape from that Pandora's box should this thing be passed into law! After all, keeping companies from dropping you when sick or weaseling out of legitimate claims by stalling until you die or your daughter dies is "intrusion." isn't it? Making you take responsibility for staying off the welfare rolls and clogging up the hospitals or walking around spreading TB is just egregious "intrusion." Let's give absolute immunity from the law to insurers and all in the name of individual freedom. Massa knows what's best and what's best is that you only shop at the company store.

What's more, the Florida Attorney General shall have the power to sue the Federal Government on behalf of any neo-Confederate who thinks I have to pay when his diseased ilk inflate the local hospital operating costs because he doesn't believe in health insurance - sue at the Taxpayer's expense, of course.

I don't like slippery slope arguments and I'm not saying that this will lead to revolts against mandatory car insurance or boat insurance or any kind of required liability insurance, but the principle is indeed the same: "Damn Gummint cain't tell us what to do" even if that government is elected to do what it's doing by a majority of voters who presumably still have the right to decide such things: a right not inferior to the right of corporations to do as they please. The principle is the same: government is about what we the people want, not what we the voters want. Upside down elitism and corporate feudalism at it's purest.

Yes, I'm surrounded by people who tell me that the 1861 revolt, or "the War of Northern Aggression," was about "freedom" without any sense of irony and they feel likewise about almost anything that requires any funding, except of course farm subsidies and special tax breaks for Exxon Mobil. Their revolt is about the same kind of "freedom" I guess. Sometimes that's my freedom, not theirs, since they're concerned about my heirs' inheritance taxes while theirs won't pay any, and a couple of percent more on my income taxes while more than half of them won't pay any this year or ever have incomes anywhere near the top 10%. Of course their freedom to go about uninsured Makes my outrageous health insurance premiums more outrageous, but it's the thought that counts, isn't it?

Pathologizing Dissent, or Deja Vu All Over Again

Hendrik Hertzberg, from The New Yorker magazine, whose political commentary I usually enjoy and agree with, has just added himself to the growing and not-so-illustrious line of those who mock and dismiss critics of our so-called health care reform bill, in his piece aptly titled -- because of its unintentional self-mockery -- Um, Pathetic.

To his credit, Hertzberg, somewhat reluctantly, admits that the bill has “conspicuous flaws,” but he breezily absolves our lawmakers of their responsibility for them, maintaining, rather unconvincingly, that our Congress is an inanimate entity, impervious to human feelings, thoughts, or intentions.

A curious observation, that, especially in light of the various astounding concessions our supposedly unfeeling and unthinking Senators (OK, there may be some truth to it) were able to intentionally finagle for their votes. For example, the sweet and jaw-dropping Medicaid deal for Nebraska secured by just one (allegedly unfeeling and unthinking) individual Senator, Ben Nelson. Or a mind-boggling provision giving Medicare benefits to all citizens of one town in Montana, obtained by Senator Baucus. (This begs an obvious question: if it can be done for all citizens of one whole town, why not for all citizens of our country?)

For an inanimate, unfeeling entity, the Senate members have shown remarkable, life-like nimbleness and skills in securing favorable concessions on their own behalf (because, let’s face it, they were negotiated with an eye on their upcoming elections).

Furthermore, Hertzberg does something even more unsavory in his attempt to excuse the Senate and President Obama from bearing responsibility for the "conspicuous flaws" of this bill: he joins the chorus of those who pathologize dissenting critics, even though his attempts at this untoward exercise are somewhat less heavy-handed than those done by the White House.

But Hertzberg too ridicules people like Howard Dean (whom the White House called “insane,” “irrational” and “uninformed”), Arianna Huffington, Keith Olbermann, Ralph Nader, and others. Not that he gives any space in his column to discussing the merits of their criticisms – he dismisses them off hand, attributing to the critics' thinking a “pathetic fallacy:" that of considering our Congress to be populated by living and breathing human beings.

Hertzberg says,

The pathetic fallacy is a category mistake. It’s the false attribution of human feelings, thoughts, or intentions to inanimate objects, or to living entities that cannot possibly have such feelings, thoughts, or intentions—cruel seas, dancing leaves, hot air that “wants” to rise.

Ah, yes, cruel seas and dancing leaves. Just like our Congress.

To think of it, accusing one of cultivating a “pathetic fallacy” is only a tiny bit less offensive, if at all, than calling one “insane” (as it was done to Howard Dean). But the overall message is the same: the critics of the insurance reform must be, well - what’s the word? – crazy. Their thinking is seriously and "pathetically" compromised. That’s the diagnosis at which Hertzberg and others in his camp arrive without giving any consideration to the merits of the critics’ objections.

For some of us, this trend to pathologize dissent has the familiar aura of the way the Soviet government dealt with its critics, labeling them psychotic if they dared to voice their opposition to its policies. The next step was forced hospitalization and “treatment” – thankfully, Hertzberg et al. are not advocating that. Yet.

Instead, they issue soothing assurances from experts, like Paul Krugman who calls this massive and mandatory transfer of the American working and middle-class into the hands of private corporations “a great achievement.”

Reasonable people disagree on this. Rather than “establishing the principle that all Americans are entitled to essential health care,” as Krugman says (quoted by Hertzberg), the bill clearly establishes that all Americans are to be sacrificed like lambs on the altars of the corporate profits – or be punished if they refuse to participate in the sacrifice.

Call it what you will, but please do not call it a “great achievement,” or, even worse, a historic health care overhaul, as our grandiose and self-serving lawmakers and pundits are prone to do. That’s as offensive and possibly harmful as being diagnosed insane for pointing out the unpalatable obvious.

Hertzberg also compares the current legislation to the troubled and imperfect process of enacting Medicare under, first, Kennedy, and then Lyndon Johnson, as if forgetting that Medicare is a government-run program and not yet another corporate enterprise (which is what this health insurance reform effectively turns our health care into).

He lectures angry progressives, in the condescending manner of one who can so capably point out others' pathetic fallacies, that their indignation would be better directed at what an earlier generation of malcontents called “the system”—starting, perhaps, with the Senate’s filibuster rule, an inanimate object if there ever was one.

Curiously, or not at all, somehow Hertzberg does not seem to appreciate a possible fallacy creeping into his own reasoning -- that trying to change "the system" is only slightly more challenging than trying to change individual minds of "the system's" members.

But you know what they say: one man's fallacy is another's New Yorker's commentary.

Last but not least: Hertzberg takes exception to those who call Obama a “liar.” All right. What should we call the President then, if he has broken his major campaign and early presidential promises pertaining to the health care reform (e.g., on drug price controls and importation, public option, tax increases – you know, all those things that would make this legislation a real reform, and not just putting lipstick on the corporate pig)?

Not only that, but when recently asked about his abandonment of the public option, Obama stated that he never campaigned on it or promised it, which flies in the face of verifiable facts (i.e., his own documented statements). If these are not lies, what should we call them – terminological inexactitudes perhaps?

On one thing, however, I agree with Hertzberg: yes, it is all, um, pathetic.

Cross-posted from The Middle of Nowhere.

Noam Chomsky: America Is Not a Democracy

This brief lecture, from 2007, seems appropriate to revisit today:



Merry Christmas to all.

Rep. Anthony Weiner Wants To Chat

Or so he says, and you betcha (thanks, Sarah) I'm not going to miss the opportunity. Thought you may want to take advantage of it, too. The man wants to know how I/we feel -- so let's tell him.

Here is his message:

Dear Elizabeth,

I am deeply disappointed with the lost opportunities and capitulation in the health care bill the Senate will vote on later this week. And I know we are all upset with the Senate proposal.

I believe that we have a real chance to curb health care costs and provide affordable coverage to everyone. And we're all frustrated that the Senate has chosen not to act boldly, but to instead bend to the will of a small minority who do not want to see real reform.

As I wrote you last week, it's important to me to hear directly from you during this frustrating time. Please join me for a live online chat on Tuesday, December 22nd, at 7:00 PM EST at countdowntohealthcare.com/chat/.

We can discuss what's happening in the Senate and talk about what the rest of the process will look like, from a full Senate vote, to the conference committee that will reconcile the House and Senate bills.

I want to answer your questions, but I also want to know how you feel. I still believe that we should remain at the table until this process is over, but it's important to me to hear what you think.

I know that many of us are upset that just a few senators have managed to stand in the way of real progress on health care. But now is a time for us to talk, keep the conversation alive, and figure out what we can do to help advance the cause of quality, affordable health care in America.

I look forward to chatting with you on Tuesday, December 22nd at 7:00 PM EST at countdowntohealthcare.com/chat/.

Thanks,
Anthony.

Health Insurance Reform Winners and Losers

Who wins, who loses in Senate health bill

By Erica Werner, AP

WASHINGTON – The little town of Libby, Mont., isn't mentioned by name in the Senate's mammoth health care bill, but its 2,900 citizens are big winners in the legislation, thanks to the influence of Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.

After pushing for years for help for residents, many of whom suffer from asbestos-related illnesses from a now-closed mineral mining operation, Baucus inserted language in a package of last-minute amendments that grants them access to Medicare benefits.

He didn't advertise the change, and it takes a close read of the bill to find it. It's just one example of how the sweeping legislation designed to remake the U.S. health care system and extend coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans also helps and hurts more narrow interests, often thanks to one lawmaker with influence or bargaining power.

Continue.

====

How outrageous is it that Baucus et al. deemed all citizens of that small town worthy of Medicare benefits, but not the rest of us? Are some people better than others? More deserving of affordable health care than others?

Read the whole piece -- it's pretty disturbing, even though it's only a glimpse of the winners and losers in this debacle. Without a doubt, there are more eyebrow-raising revelations included in the bill. Like insurance coverage for prayer.

It also shows that -- surprise, surprise -- if there is a will, there is a way. If an obstinate senator wants to squeeze favorable provisions for his "special interests," it can be done, even if it flies in the face of decency, equality, and/or common sense.

So why can't the so-called progressives insist on such concessions on behalf of ALL American people?

Is this really too much to ask?