RACHEL POWERS: HOW I OUT-RAGED THE TEA PARTY IN A WAL-MART PARKING LOT
By Rachel Powers
How did an agreeable, affable person like me get into a shouting match with a Tea Partier last week?
I favor Joan Didion’s famous explanation about the weather—the combination of heat and Santa Ana winds, specifically—and its “deeply mechanistic” effects on Angelenos. Last Monday was hot, you’ll undoubtedly remember, and temperatures in our Wrigley neighborhood had reached 106 degrees well before noon. By dusk I had grown accustomed to a wind so hot that I could feel it with my eyeballs every time I opened the front door.
Tuesday was better, but still in the mid-90′s—and my 2- and 4-year old were miserable—so I went to Target to see if they were stocking wading pools. Nope.
So I went to The Place of Great Evil; Wal-Mart didn’t have any pools, either.
But it wasn’t a total loss: as I said, as I left the store I got into a shouting match with a Tea Partier—a middle-aged man wearing a fishing cap and sitting behind a large folding table spread with clipboards and pens. An enormous sign spanned the width of the table: REPEAL OBAMACARE.
The man seemed perfectly pleasant. He smiled and said “hello” to shoppers. Meanwhile, I was feeling just fine—chipper, even—enjoying a rare moment unaccompanied by a toddler demanding juice. And yet…and yet…
I walked up to the table, smiled at the man, said hi to him, then nodded toward his array of clipboards and asked, “Could you tell me where I sign to repeal Medicare?”
“What?” he asked earnestly, although as he began to catch my drift—I was referring to his Medicare—his face folded into an illustration of “disgruntled.”
I repeated myself: “Where do I sign to repeal Medicare?” But he had already recovered, returning to checking signatures on his petition. “Contact your congressman,” he said airily.
But I didn’t take the brushoff. I insisted that I wanted to sign something, sassily saying it looked like so much fun but seriously emphasizing that I didn’t want to pay for his healthcare, anymore.
The man calmly put down his pen and in a remarkably quiet voice explained, “What I am doing is using the law to overturn an illegal government program. The people didn’t have a say. The government acted against the will of the people.”
He seemed to be making my point. “OK, fine,” I responded. “Let’s repeal your Medicare. Where do I sign?”
Now he was growling: “Congress didn’t even vote on the health care bill.”
Exhilarated, I countered, “Congress passed Medicare long before I was old enough to select my representative—nobody asked me, I didn’t have any choice—so I think we should get rid of it.”
The man began to sputter about the Constitution. I shrugged. “Let me sign the petition to repeal your Medicare.”
That’s when the yelling started.
“You don’t even pay taxes for Medicare!” the man shouted.
“You have no idea what I make, or what I pay in taxes,” I volleyed back, “but I pay ‘em, and they are covering your healthcare.”
That’s when the weirdness started.
“Fine, go repeal Medicare then,” the man conceded.
“I don’t want to,” I pivoted. “I think people should have access to healthcare.”
“Fine,” the man said. “Enjoy seeing your taxes go up.”
”They should be higher, anyway,” I asserted.
That got the bull to charge.
“You know how much I make?” the man exploded, and now a group of onlookers was beginning to gather. “I make $250,000 a year! You know how much I pay in taxes? You know how many people I employ?”
While he ranted, I played to what had become a crowd, backing away from him while swinging my hands—index fingers extended—as though I were conducting an orchestra. Then it was my turn again, and I reached back into my childhood for the greatest undercut of them all.
“I don’t care how much you make or how many employees you have,” I informed him. “All I know is that you are old enough for Medicare. And I’m paying for it. I’m paying for your healthcare.”
Wobbly now, the man went after just about the only place left to go: my clothes.
“You know, just because you are wearing Birkenstocks,” he said, “I could make a lot of assumptions about you being a bleeding-heart liberal!”
But the man had made his final error, and I began to celebrate my victory.
“They’re not Birkenstocks!” I sang, grinning giddily. “Enjoy your Medicare!”
Looking back, I’m not entirely proud of my behavior.
Clearly, I had not been searching for a wading pool so much as spoiling for a fight. My confrontational manner would not have pleased my grandmother, who detested open controversy. I was as annoying as anyone else with a newly found political voice, every bit as tedious as those screechy people clutching their pristine copies of Thomas Paine, the spines tight and uncracked as soon as one thumbs past the editor’s introduction.
So be it. At least in my world, everyone would get vaccinated.
















24 Comments
Hi Ms. Powers,
What a pity that some who are advocating against Obamacare cannot be more dispassionate and simply relay the many reasons to repeal it based on the many more facts at their disposal.
The gentleman you confronted unfortunately allowed himself to be far too easily distracted from his message by your performance at his expense. This is a shame, especially in light of the fact that an audience had gathered and he missed an excellent opportunity to attempt to convince still more people of his point of view had he been able to avoid falling for your various distractions and emotional manipulations.
I would encourage those who are more interested in facts, rather than theatrics, to visit the following sites and become just a little better informed about Obamacare and it’s many detriments including some deep cuts to Medicare Advantage.
According to one source: ” These deep reductions in MA payment rates will hit low-income and minority beneficiaries disproportionately hard. The reason: Hispanic Americans are twice as likely, and African Americans are 10 percent more likely, to be enrolled in MA plans than the average Medicare beneficiary. In addition, lower-income seniors who cannot afford Medigap premiums sign up for MA plans in large numbers. We estimate that the MA reductions will hit seniors and disabled beneficiaries with incomes under $32,500 per year in income (in today’s terms) with 70 percent of the total reduction — $38.5 billion in reduced health care services.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/13/opinion-the-health-laws-massive-medicare-advantage-cuts/
So it seems, Ms. Powers, that if we cannot repeal Obamacare, we may well be harming many of the very people that some claim to desire to assist the most and that the good gentleman’s Medicare could well be cut, and severely, whether you really want it to be cut or not.
Here’s one more link that, in turn, contains many links that point to many facts that support the repeal of Obamacare. You’ll be exposed to no theatrics nor any heat-induced charades at somone polite person’s public expense…just facts and well-reasoned arguments.
I would encourage you and others to consider these arguments and the facts upon which they are based, with as open and critical a mind as possible. Thanks!
http://www.obamacarewatch.org/promisesvsreality
The USA is the only developed country in the entire world that does not have nationalized health care. Our country also has the dubious honor of having a maternal death rate similar to third world countries.
The real problem with “ObamaCare” is that it does not go nearly far enough in solving our health care problems. Healthcare is not a priviledge. It is a right. The healthcare industry should not be run for profit anymore than our government should be. I think we should completely do away with insurance companies and the current medical system. Every citizen of the USA should pay the same basic per person fee for access to a completely equal opportunity system that covers all valid medical needs. Then all medical personnel should be given a salary commiserate with their job title and experience. End of story…no more insurance companies or unfair billing practices. Everyone pays and everyone plays. Doctors who are in it “just to make money” can practice plastic surgery and perform other elective surgery–there will always be enough fools with too much money to take advantage of.
The current system is downright evil, and ObamaCare isn’t a solution either.
The irony is that this man, receiving MediCare is getting exactly the kind of service we should all be getting. If he really cared about his fellow citizens he’d be demanding an expansion of Medicare to all.
I know you think it’s all about the choices we make in life–so therefore people who do not have medical insurance only have themselves to blame– but really should the rest of us go without medical care because we did not choose to be a police man when we grew up?
jeanine is right, greet is, as usual, wrong.
greet, who we the taxpayers provide excellent health care for as well as funding his pension doesnt want the rest of us to have what he gets from the taxpayer.
Hi Jeanine, I find it interesting that some assert as rights, things that never have been considered such here before, most notably since the advent of the 60′s and the general tendency of our society toward socialism since that time.
I’m not entirely averse to the idea of universal healthcare. The model France adopted very successfully seems to have great promise.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/11/frances_model_healthcare_system/
What I am averse to, specifically, is Obamacare, the creators of which seem to have borrowed ideas from just about every currently failing model for universal healthcare around the world, added in some of their own bad ideas and incorporated them all into a monstrosity that they felt they had to pass in the middle of the night and which, I believe, is going to end up doing far more harm to our society than good. I’m glad you agree.
Please keep in mind that to “completely do away with insurance companies” means tens of thousands of Americans losing their jobs (and, of coursem subsequently being added to the already increasing numbers of people on taxpayer-funded unemployment assistance. It alsomeans that millions upon millions of Americans who own stock in such companies will lose all of that supplemental income. This could result in a large number of them, retirees mostly, applying for additional government aid to offset the loss. Every action has consequences, Ms. B, and I think we should be far more aware of this truth and consider the potential consequences of everything we do far more critically than those currently in power in Washington have been.
As to the profession my colleagues and I chose, I will not make a single apology for it. Those in public safety do a thankless and difficult job day after day and year after year that most of the rest of society seems quite content to have done for them. I chose my profession for many reasons, including the great pay and benefits I knew I would earn. Then I did what I had to do to make and to keep myself qualified for my profession and then to earn the right to serve and to keep serving my community in this way. But make no mistake, those in public safety earn every single dollar they make and every benefit they negotiate from their employer. No one “gives” these public employees anything. It’s all earned, and beyond earned…sometimes it’s bled for…and sometimes it’s died for. Nobody seems to complain about that though…only about what they’re asked to pay for that level of risk and of personal sacrifice.
Everybody makes choices in their lives, Ms. B. And all choices have consequences. Some just don’t seem inclined to accept that truth.
John, the model France has is one I would also approve of. I actually dislike Obamacare for requiring citizens to buy insurance from the [corrupt] insurance companies. It is not a step in the right direction.
It is ironic we both dislike “ObamaCare” given our very different political ideologies. I would like to point out, however that the BS “HealthCare Reform” we ended up with is a direct result of Republican opposition to Obama’s original proposed plan. The resulting “Bipartisan” comparomise is what is messed up.
…oh, and also your choice in profession really shouldn’t guarantee you *priviledges* like *adequate* healthcare.
…and John, I appreciate every member of the police and fire department for their public service. I do not begrudge them their well-deserved benefits. I am just asking why are the basic necessities of life being relegated to “benefits?”
Something is very wrong with that thinking.
And here I was ready to argue that it was shown quite conclusively that Medicare “Advantage” was overcharging compared to Medicare… But in the end I realized it was The Greet…
So Jeanine, take heart, because in 10-20 years the system will still look
very different. The new legislation, flawed for sure, makes huge strides
and opens the door(s) to a long process that has only just begun. Remember
how extremely limited Social Security was when it first passed, and cheer up that we are at least on the road to reforming this shitty system.
Ms. B, My profession guarantees me nothing other than a lot of sleepless nights, periodic nightmares, a hyper-developed sense of area awareness and self protection, and a much shorter average lifespan after retiring than almost every other profession.
Public safety wages and benefits are by no means guaranteed to anyone. As we have seen over and over again throughout the years, even when those in public safety collectively bargain in good faith with their employer as is their right, they are repeatedly expected to “give back” some, if not all, of the wages and benefits that those they negotiated with agreed to provide in return for the work product *the employees* have been and continue to provide.
It’s interesting to me that no one seems to suggest that these employees “give back” an amount of either the quantity or the quality of their work product that may be commensurate with the wages and/or benefits they are also giving back. Labor is expected to “give back” compensation, and do so gladly it seems, but management is never expected to make do with a lesser amount of work or a lesser quality of work, from those same workers. I wonder why that is?
I cannot answer your question as to why some consider health care a “basic necessity” while others consider it to be a “benefit.” All I can tell you is that I agree that our former healthcare system was broken and that there were many reasonable, efficient, less costly and less intrusive ways in which we might have repaired it. But we didn’t choose those options. Instead we chose Obamacare, in the middle of the night and by an incredibly thin margin of votes. All I can tell you is that, unless it is repealed, I believe that Obamacare will prove to be one of the worst public policy decisions we have made in a very, very long time.
kelson, Could you please cite your source(s) that support your assertion “that it was shown quite conclusively that Medicare “Advantage” was overcharging compared to Medicare?” In researching this aspect of the healthcare challenge, I’ve found several sources that tend to disprove what you’ve asserted here so I’d be very interested in learning something different from your sources. Thanks!
Mr. Greet,
I frequently disagree with you, but I always appreciate your cordiality. I will write more later–I haven’t had the time to do much more than skim the responses–but two thoughts leap to mind:
1) I take issue with your notion that this man was somehow victimized by a woman making a few quips outside of a grocery store. Let us remember: he had an enormous sign urging the public to join the fight to take healthcare away from poor people. He had a sign requesting help in abolishing protections for people with preexisting conditions. He had a sign demanding that we put aside our concerns about kids being taken to the emergency room after their eardrums burst because their parents couldn’t afford to see a pediatrician four days earlier and were just praying that their child didn’t have an ear infection. At what point does it become downright *unseemly* to try to wrench charity from those who need it?
2) I also take issue with your assertion that this poor man was ambushed, caught unprepared, by my simple–predictable–points regarding Medicare. If the guy is going to put out a HUGE sign calling for the end to national healthcare, well, he ought to have some decent arguments ready. Especially if he’s going to choose WalMart as his venue, where almost none of the employees have healthcare. (Unless they are 80 year old greeters on……Medicare.) The man was engaged in a political act. I didn’t throw anything at him, I didn’t make fun of him, I didn’t threaten him with violence. I took issue with a political statement that he HAD PROFESSIONALLY PRINTED ON AN ENORMOUS VINYL SHEET. I was very personable as I attempted to illustrate what I see as a logical inconsistency, just as he was very personable as he threw himself, wholeheartedly, into a campaign to deny healthcare to thousands upon thousands.
One day the country may decide that US Veterans are a bunch of whiners and a cap should be put on their benefits, but I will be horrified if that happens. One day the country may axe unemployment benefits and say, “f***ers should have saved more money while they had a job,” and I will be horrified. One day the country will say, “Stupid, poor black people didn’t leave New Orleans–if they had JOBS then they could have afforded the gas to get out of town and wouldn’t have to depend on the government to save them”…oh wait. I did hear someone say that, and worse. Bill O’Reilly, during a broadcast that took place a few days after Katrina.
The GAO: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09132r.pdf
According to them, o average, MA spent 83.3% of their revenue on medical expenses, with about 10% being not-profit and not-medical. For Medicare
the supposedly-equivalent number, supposedly even including hidden costs, is around 5% (http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHI_Medicare_Admin_Final_Publication.pdf).
hey greet, before i leave the mountain, it looks like the links i assembled are
awaiting moderation. stay tune! URLs might offend the sensibilities of minors apparently!
where did greet go?
Ms. Powers,
Thanks so much for your considerate and thought-provoking response. If only all who debate and disagree could do so in as civil and respectful a manner as you have!
A few points in rebuttal to your latest comments if I may:
My perception of the manner in which you chose to deal with the fellow at the Wal-Mart was developed as a direct result of the manner in which you chose to convey that encounter in your article.
Phrasing you chose to employ in your article such as:
- “Sassily” insisting that you be allowed to sign a petition that the fellow was not offering (to repeal medicare) because signing something “looked like so much fun” then, once invited to “go repeal” medicare, saying you “didn’t want to.”
and
- “I played to what had become a crowd, backing away from him while swinging my hands—index fingers extended—as though I were conducting an orchestra”
lead me to believe that you were less interested in engaging in a civil and courteous debate on the merits or demerits of what he was advocating and more interested in “spoiling for a fight” and engaging with the fellow in a clearly “confrontational” and “annoying” manner.
These were your own words, Ms. Powers, not mine.
But I also fully acknowledged in my initial response that I feel that the fellow who proved so easy for you to fluster and manipulate should have been able to manage such an encounter in a more constructive manner or, at the very least, decline to rise to the “confrontational” and “annoying” bait you persisted in dangling before him, especially if he’s going to presume to solicit signatures for political petitions in public fora. Shame on *him* for being so easily manipulated into his yelling, obvious frustration and deflection onto topics that had nothing whatsoever to do with his cause (i.e. your clothing.) And shame on *his organization* for not better preparing him for public debate on a very critical and contentious aspect of public policy.
Now,
You said: “At what point does it become downright *unseemly* to try to wrench charity from those who need it?”
Obamacare does not, in any way or to any degree, constitute or represent “charity.” People who give “charitably” to those less fortunate do so on a voluntary basis and they do so with their own funds, goods or talents. Government doesn’t own any money of its and the money it confiscates from the people through taxation is in most cases not…repeat not…ceded voluntarily. If you doubt this truth, just try to not “volunteer” to pay your income tax in any given year.
Obamacare no more represents “charity” than do various “welfare” benefits.
Each of these programs and many, many more besides, have been created and administered by a government grown far too corpulent, far too inefficient and far less representative of the true will of the majority of the people. A government grown far less thus representative than it was ever intended to be.
Through these programs and many, many others government does not engage in “charity.” It engages in *replacing* and preempting charity. It engages in acting on the misguided belief that it can accomplish more, through manadatory entitlement programs, than the people themselves can accomplish by keeping more of their own money and charitbly donating it as and where *they* choose.
Mischaracterizing these inefficient and ineffective entitlement programs as “charity” is often a blatant attempt by their supporters to reserve to themselves the moral high ground and to frame the argument in such a way as to imply that to oppose such programs, one must necesaarily be “uncharitable,” “uncaring,” “selfish,” “elitist,” or any of the other descriptors so often used to offer insult to those who think different approaches could be better.
You said: “…just as he was very personable as he threw himself, wholeheartedly, into a campaign to deny healthcare to thousands upon thousands.”
I reject your premise that repealing Obamacare would have the effect you assert. In fact, we’re seeing that Obamacare itself is already resulting in many thousands of people losing the healthcare coverage they already have despite Obama’s original and repeated assurances that those who wanted to keep their existing coverage would be able to:
http://www.examiner.com/scotus-in-washington-dc/22-000-lose-their-health-insurance-due-to-obamacare-as-healthcare-costs-rise
Besides shedding “existing” customers as a direct result of Obamacare, many other insurance providers are also drastically increasing their current rate structures as a direct result of Obamacare:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720004575478200948908976.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEForthNews
You said: “One day the country may decide that US Veterans are a bunch of whiners and a cap should be put on their benefits, but I will be horrified if that happens. One day the country may axe unemployment benefits and say, “f***ers should have saved more money while they had a job,” and I will be horrified. One day the country will say, “Stupid, poor black people didn’t leave New Orleans–if they had JOBS then they could have afforded the gas to get out of town and wouldn’t have to depend on the government to save them”…oh wait. I did hear someone say that, and worse. Bill O’Reilly, during a broadcast that took place a few days after Katrina.”
This is what I think, Ms. Powers (besides questioning the wisdom of considering anything any media entertainer may say or how he or she may say it to be truly illustrative of what the average political conservative person believes, that is):
I think that if we continue much further down this socialistic path we are currently on in this greatest of nations, a path which Omama and his willing dupes in Congress shove and cajole and intimidate and misdirect our society further and further down with each passing day, we will very likely find ourselves in the same predicament Greece did last May, where, as analyzed by Reuters:
“Groups of masked youths hurled petrol bombs, stones and sticks at riot police as nearly 50,000 striking workers and public servants marched to parliament, where a bill dictating pay cuts and tax hikes was due for debate.” “The ruling socialists, who came to power in October pledging to tax the rich and help the poor (sound familiar at all?), are keenly aware of the need to sustain public support in imposing harsh austerity measures.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6443GA20100506
Those so-called “harsh austerity measures?” An attempt to cut that country’s deficit by 30 billion euros so that it would be allowed to remain a part of the newly formed European Union.
For that most horrible of policy initiatives tens of thousands of people started rioting in the streets and killing innocents. How was the Greek government proposing to accomplish its budget cuts?
“…the government has started slashing away at spending and has implemented austerity measures aimed at reducing the deficit by more than €10 billion ($13.7 billion). It has hiked taxes on fuel, tobacco and alcohol, raised the retirement age by two years, imposed public sector pay cuts and applied tough new tax evasion regulations.”
The significance, to me, is not that these reforms are deemed necessary to save an entire nation, but that the people in that nation allowed conditions to devolve to the point that it got that bad there in the first place. Wha we saw occurring in Greece was a huge segment of a nation’s population that had grown complacent and indoctrinated with a belief that they were “entitled” to a certain standard of living, that such a standard was their “right” and that it was increasingly government’s “responsibility” to provide it.
What caused the current finaincial problems in Greece?: “Years of unrestrained spending, cheap lending and failure to implement (effective) financial reforms”
http://www.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/02/10/greek.debt.qanda/index.html
Here’s a really good explanation of what went wrong in Greece and how similar those problems are to our own, here in the US:
http://www.slate.com/id/2244878/
We, in the US, must stop compounding our existing problems with the sense that government is the solution to them. Government (as represented, for example, by Obamacare) is not the *solution*, it is symptomatic of the *problem.* The problem being, much as occurred in Greece; a huge and growing segment of our nation’s population that has grown complacent and indoctrinated with a belief that they are “entitled” to a certain standard of living, that such a standard is their “right” and that it is increasingly government’s “responsibility” to provide it.
Hey, Rachel–I can’t argue knowledgeably or informedly the way the other posters can because I don’t understand a damn thing about any of the details, but I do know great writing and the feeling of “wish I’d been there, in your shoes.” If you ever decide that this was only the first round and want to take on the LaRouche folks next, tweet me or something.
posting opinion pieces as fact and cherry picking from articles doesnt make you anymore right.
Rachel Powers for Govenor!
Ah, the old “true will of the majority” — always on the right side of history…
Hi kelson, thanks for the links in offered in support of your assertion “that it was shown quite conclusively that Medicare “Advantage” was overcharging compared to Medicare.”
In response I offer the following information and links that seem to, at worst, serve to mitigate the information you have offered and, at best, refute it outright:
“President Obama said, “Medicare does just as good, if not better, at keeping people healthy” as Medicare Advantage. We found *little statistical evidence* that would definitively confirm or refute this. MedPAC, the independent agency that reports to Congress, said it had no reason to think that Medicare Advantage overall was superior to regular Medicare. Nevertheless, there is uncertainty that merits further study. We rate Obama’s statement Half True.”
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/24/barack-obama/difference-medicare-medicare-advantage-maybe/
and
“In the final analysis, if the “reforms” in Medicare Advantage made by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act go into effect, they will inevitably and unambiguously restrict senior citizens and the disabled to fewer and worse health care choices, reducing their access to quality health care.”
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Reductions-in-Medicare-Advantage-Payments-The-Impact-on-Seniors-by-Region
Also, the report you linked from the GOA is dated 12/8/08. The GAO has since updated much of the information in that report and released these new findings in a report dated 4/30/10. I would encourage you to review this newer GAO report.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10403.pdf
also
Please consider these comments from America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).
http://www.ahip.org/content/pressrelease.aspx?docid=31571
In short, kelson, it seems clear that allegations are anything but “conclusive” that Medicare Advantage (MA) “overcharges” for its services. In truth, it’s extremely difficult to compare MA to other Medicare plans because different Medicare plans serve different people in a variety of different ways and it really should be left to the individual, rather than government, to decide which plan will fit best for a given person or segment of our society.
But that’s precisely what Obamacare presumes to do…to tell people that government knows best which Medicare plan is best for them. Those who created this aspect of Obamacare relied on incomplete and outdated information that was far less comprehensive than it could or should have been and, in so doing, they have created a situation in which “According to CBO, Medicare Advantage enrollment in 2019 will drop from 13.9 to 9.1 million. This is a 35 percent decline in enrollment based on current projections – a loss of 4.8 million seniors.” and “According to CBO, the average value of additional benefits provided by Medicare Advantage plans will decline from $135 in 2019 to $67 – a 50 percent decline.”
As to the will of the majority:
We are, or we are supposed to be, “a nation of laws, not of men.” But by this, President Adams did not mean that we should abandon our democratic approach to governing our constitutional republic. Rather we are, to the best of our ability, to accurately assess the will of all of the peoples in our so-called civil society as represented by a majority of voters.
But because a majority of voters, however well-intended, can sometimes decide in a manner that is contrary to certain natural laws or civil rights (as those are understood at the time,) that “majority will” must be properly restrained by the rule of law.
It is our laws, and little else, that protect the minority of the people from what de Tocqueville referred to as the “tyranny of the majority” (Democracy in America, 1840) and which, long before, Socrates -through Plato- characterized as “…the fourth and worst disorder of a State” (Republic, Book VIII).
If we can agree that the ultimate and overarching law of our nation is the Constitution, and if we can agree that there exists, in no place in our Constitution, the authority of Congress to create a nationalized system of healthcare, then we must also agree that Obamacare is therefore unconstitutional and should be repealed.
But even if we cannot agree that Obamacare is unconstitutional and should be repealed on that basis, I hope we *can* agree that the true aim of a civil and enlightened society is to seek to improve the lives of all members of that society who seek the same themselves.
If we can agree on that, then we should likewise be able to agree that, because our society’s resources are finite, simple logic dictates that we consider employing only those measures that serve to improve the lives of the most members of the society to the greatest degree possible and avoid other measures that do not.
Obamacare is a measure that does not.
There were problems with our, now former, healthcare system. In this there is no dispute. The dispute exists in how best to correct those problems. There exist many reasonable and far more cost effective approaches to addressing the many challenges to our former healthcare system. Tort reform and portability chief among them. Dealing effectively with these two critical challenges would help to assist the greatest number of people to the greatest degree possible, but Obamacare addresses *neither* of those challenges.
What Obamacare *does* do, is influence insurance companies to raise already high premiums, on everyone, including those who can afford these increases the least. What Obamacare *does* do is add tens of thousands more to existing and already overburdened medicare roles and then to cut the reimbursal rates in some of medicares plans both of which, in turn, influence medical health professionals to refuse to see additional medicare patients and, in some cases, to drop the medicare patients they are already seeing.
These easily anticipated responses from insurance companies and healthcare providers serve to leave many in our society (recall, most them the very people whose lives we’re most trying to improve) with even fewer healthcare options than they had before and at a far greater cost both to them and to the society at large.
Our healthcare system was flawed but I do not believe fatally so. Obamacare, however, was fatally flawed at conception and with each passing day we learn more and more of what, I believe, those legislators who created it and supported it the most knew all along…
…that at the end of the day all Obamacare would do is drive up the overall cost of healthcare, drive down the overall quality and availability of healthcare, and make more in our society still more dependent upon on a federal government already grown far too expansive, invasive, intrusive, inefficient and costly than it was ever intended to be.
I love how you call it Obamacare. Presidents do not write the laws, even to this day. They may occasionally act like they can declare war, but no, as of yet, they do not write laws. So I will enjoy your amusing opinionating by continuing to call the shitty health care the rest of the country enjoys Reaganbushonixoncare, at least for those of us who have health insurance and thus have some measure of care owed to us in times of need.
I will take Obamacare, for me and my relatives and my friends and any strangers I meet over Reaganbushonixoncare, any day. Tis far far more rational and as democratically instituted as any major piece of legislation in the past twenty years can be out of this little body called congress that actually has the job of legislating.
You could just call it Congresscare and I just might agree on that name. Anything that is going to come out of Congress won’t be pretty… but this is sure a hell of a lot prettier than the treatment we get from our insurance companies. Speaking of which: visiting a doctor shouldn’t even be a matter of insurance. We all have to do it — unlike, say, car accidents or sinking ships — and usually a lot more often.
Blah. You caught me in a good mood. Thank g-d I am still in one.
Hi kelson: It’s been called Obamacare by political pundits from *both* sides of the aisle because Obama made this monstrosity a central goal of his from the very beginning of his campaign for the Presidency. I hope you will agree that but for Obama’s dogged persistence and leadership on this issue, Obamacare would never have been passed and even *with* it, it only *barely* passed despite the fact that a significant number of democrats (and all republicans) disagreed that it was the right way to go. I like the term Obamacare because it’s easier and shorter to type than “Public Law 111 – 148, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”
So I’m sorry if you disapprove but I’ll continue to use the term that supporters and critics alike have been using for some time now. You’re welcome to call any former healthcare legislation, passed under previous Presidents, whatever makes you comfy.
I think you and every other supporter of Obamacare continue to make a lot of erroneous and unfounded assumptions about the law. Many of those assumptions have already been disproved and yet you persist in clinging to them. It remains, of course, your right to do so. I believe many more of those assumptions will likewise be disproved in the coming months and years, assuming the monstrosity isn’t repealed, as it rightly should be, sometime between now and then.
I think there existed many reasonable, cost-effective and constructive fixes for the various things that were wrong with our former system. But most of those fixes (like tort reform and portability, for instance) required a political stance that was considerably more ethical, moral and principled than most politicians, of either stripe, were willing to take.
I’m glad you’re in a good mood, kelson. May your mood persist for you despite the growing understanding that you are sure to eventually achieve of just how truly bad a law Obamacare is, how much damage it will eventually visit upon our society as a whole and how much more indebted our children and grandchildren will become as a result of it.
Two unfunded wars and the unfunded Medicare Part D sure cost a heckuvagoodjobbrownie more and I must have missed when you
complaing about those from the rooftops. I shouldabeen paying more attention to you then.
You are incorrect on all points in this last post, kelson.
1. The military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are both part of the same war, they are not separate from one another in any way other than geographically. Both of these actions were fully approved and have been funded by Congress…our democrat-controlled Congress, I might add.
Medicare Part D is, indeed, funded. This from the Social Security Administrations Actuarial Publication “A SUMMARY OF THE 2010 ANNUAL REPORTS”:
“Part B of Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI), which pays for doctors’ bills and other outpatient expenses, and Part D, which pays for access to prescription drug coverage, **are both projected to remain adequately financed into the indefinite future because current law automatically provides financing each year to meet the next year’s expected costs.** However, the aging population will result in SMI costs growing rapidly from 1.9 percent of GDP in 2009 to 3.5 percent of GDP in 2040; about three-quarters of these costs will be financed from general revenues and about one-quarter from premiums paid by beneficiaries.”
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
This is not to say that I agree that government should be involved in running public healthcare to any degree or for anybody, but it is what it is and, at least according to the source I have cited for you, Medicare Part D is “projected to remain adequately financed into the indefinite future.”
Comparative costs:
As of 2008, Congress estimated that total war-related funding since 9-11 to be $700 billion.
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/CRS-Belasco-2008-02-Iraq-Costs-RL33110.pdf
Between 2006 (when Part D was enacted) and 2008, federal Medicare Part D expenditures totalled about $133.4 billion.
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2009.pdf
Total, through 2008, of Iraq, Afghanistan and Medicare Part D combined: about $833.4 billion
Total CBO estimated cost for Obamacare through 2019 “easily tops $1 trillion.”
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/05/11/cbo-adds-115-billion-to-obamac
So, kelson, the next time you try to assert that “(t)wo unfunded wars and the unfunded Medicare Part D…cost…more” than Obamacare will be costing us, you just might want to reconsider.
This is the difference between relying upon facts and relying hyperbole and rhetoric and I think we would all be much better served to rely more on the latter and avoid the former altogether.
I got all dyslexic at the end there….sorry. Please rely more upon facts and less upon hyperbole and rhetoric. Thanks.