Healthcare Reform Support???
I’ve been hearing reports of counts of people who supposedly support the current healthcare reform being proposed by our President and Congress (HR3200).
I’m not doubting there is some support among the general population… but I also want us to consider that it might be over stated through over generalization. Consider the following true story I once heard.
There once was a company that had an office arrangement such that workers worked in cubicles, like Dilbert. One day, the company was thinking of changing the way offices were arranged and hired an office design company (who happened to stand to profit if the cubicle configuration was changed) to do a study on the work environment to see what kinds of changes might be needed. The office configuration company did their study, which included a survey of employees’ views. Among the questions in the survey was something like “Of the following choices, what is the most important aspect of work that could use the improvement?” Whatever the multiple-choice options were, the wildly most popular answer was “communications.”
The office configuration company, then, happily reported to the company that their survey decisively concluded that the company should completely re-do their cubicle configuration. Their most critical point to be addressed: Lower cubicle walls so employees can see each other with the purpose of improving communications (i.e. talking in the office).
And, so the company began converting the offices, floor by floor. There was a HUGE outcry of dissatisfaction with the new cubicles! The workers, being knowledge workers (like the engineers in Dilbert’s office) valued their privacy and didn’t like frequent interruptions.
You see, as it turned out, what most people had meant by improvement in “communications”, turned out to be that they wanted more vertical communications from management about important company news. They absolutely did NOT mean they wanted more chatter in and around their workspace.
The moral is, that when people site survey results or other numbers of viewpoints that seem to support the desire for healthcare reform… don’t assume that what these people had in mind is or was anything resembling what our current congress seems to have in mind.
People want tort reform. People want to find ways to put more power in the hands of individuals. There are a number of things people want that don’t involve a public option healthcare system that will likely undermine the better things about the system we already have.
Let’s not assume people want to throw out the baby with the bath water when it comes to our healthcare system.
August 8th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Why waste space analogizing health care reform with something from a Dilbert comic? This only muddles the issue for people, many of whom are confused at best about what’s even on the table…
August 9th, 2009 at 8:00 am
Lets put it simply then. Fix health insurance? Okay, we can work on that. Create a huge Federal bureaucracy that takes away people’s freedom, puts government in charge of their health care decisions, demolishes the economy and rations health care? I’m afraid not. Obama and his Socialist dream really have met their Waterloo.
August 10th, 2009 at 3:37 am
Truefreedom,
Point taken. My point was simply to provide an example illustrating why not to take the hype about “so called” Healthcare reform supporters in the public at face value. Regards.
August 10th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
While we’re at it, let’s also not assume that all of the hyperbolic rhetoric and temper tantrums displayed at town hall meetings should be taken at face value. You’re Dilbert-esque logic works both ways.
By the way, regarding this public option that has some folks sharpening their pitchforks: There’s already a public option for seniors–a true single-payer, government run health care system–that subscribers are overwhelmingly satisfied with. It’s called Medicare. Should we get rid of that too?
August 10th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Urge,
I don’t believe your logic tracks.
1) The premise behind not taking the protests at town hall meetings at face value has nothing to do with the kind of misinterpretation of I describe in my post. Correct me if I assume incorrectly, but I take your “objection” to the townhall protests as being based on an assumption that they are insincere. That is another topic, but you’ll find it is one I know to be erroneous. I know plenty of unpaid people attending townhalls because they are truly concerned and opposed to public option healthcare. And, by the way, those from the Tea Parties were not the rowdy ones.
2) My logic is not “Dilbert-esque” The logic is sound. I simply used an example involving an office situation resembling Dilbert-esque office cubicles.
3) All logic cannot be reversed effectively in all situations. For my argument to be effectively reversed, you would have to believe a significant portion of those speaking against the current healthcare plan really want even more government intervention. That is, the assumed reason they are against it (too much govt. interference) is wrong. This would be the true counter point to my logic wherein I say that those favoring healthcare reform do not favor the assumed form of reform (e.g. HR3200) but instead something much different like Tort reform.
My logic is sound.
4) Medicare? Seriously? You’re going to try to use a program that is underpaying physicians and hospitals leading to cost shifting resulting in higher prices for everyone else and still, in spite of underpaying, is destined for bankruptcy, to support your point? Are you sure you don’t want to reconsider your argument?
Regards
August 11th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Brian, first of all, I can see that you take care to use a genuinely conversational and civil tone in your posts and responses, which is appreciated and rather uncommon in the political blogosphere (on all sides of the spectrum, btw). That said, yes, your assumption is incorrect. Reversing the “logic” of your post does not entail the belief that many of those speaking (or screaming like undisciplined children) against the health care plan actually want more “government intervention.”
Your premise that public support for HR3200–which is far from perfect but still in a state of flux, remember–may be “overstated through over generalization” does indeed work both ways. I’m sure you’re aware that the Washington DC, lobbyist-run groups Americans for Prosperity and Freedomworks—the latter of which controls the Tea Party Patriots–have pushed a two-fisted strategy to create the impression of mass opposition to health care reform. Bob MacGuffie, a “Tea Party Patriot” volunteer, created the now-infamous script that at least some significant portion of these protesters read, if not adhere to. I’m sure you’ve seen it. In case you haven’t, it states, in part:
“Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up. The Rep should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington.”
So your premise of public support for reform possibly being “over stated through over generalization” goes both ways. What’s clear is that many of the INITIAL shouting matches at townhall meetings were lobbyist-born, bused-in manufactured outrage. (Now we have shouters from both sides of the aisle being bused in. How does that get us anywhere?) But outrage begets outrage when played on an endless media loop. Now, some of the screamers and protesters are genuinely concerned and upset, and they’re getting all of the media attention because they’re acting like a mob. Beneath all of the shouted rhetoric, the silent majority of the public still wants and needs health care reform. We all keep hearing from the tea party people that the United States has the “best health care in the world.” You’ve got to be kidding. Look at the numbers: The U.S. is ranked 43rd in the world in infant mortality. We’re 47th in life expectancy. Half the bankruptcies in this country are due to medical expenses. I could go on and on. What factor ties all of these stats together? We’re the only wealthy, industrialized nation IN THE WORLD that does not have a universal health care system. The irony is that people do have a genuine reason to be shouting about our health care system, but it’s because we’re headed for disaster with the current one.
Finally, as to Medicade, I never claimed that it was perfect, only that its subscribers expressed satisfaction with the program. It is all of the things you said, and maybe then some. It is laced with fraud and corruption. So are private insurance companies, who can drop your coverage on a whim and be every bit the bureaucratic nightmare that people on the right fear of a government-run system. My question to you about Medicaid and Medicare, which accounts for nearly 14% of all health care in the United States (Medicaid accounts for almost 13%. Do the math, and that’s 27% of all health care funded by federal and state dollars) is: are you proposing that we get rid of those systems?
Thanks for the discussion.
August 11th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200512090009
August 13th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Hey Urge,
Thanks.. And I appreciate your civil approach as well.
To make an aside. While I wouldn’t, I respect the right of frustrated Americans to vent a bit when they feel their representatives are not listening. I have seen and heard instances where these reps and senators are actually mocking and making fun of anyone who dares question them. I can understand why that might upset people. Democracy and freedom of speech are sometimes messy… but that doesn’t always mean that’s a bad thing.
As much as I love debating points of logic, I don’t have much time and want to focus on the important points.
I do not know nor care who is helping to fund Tea Party Patriots (TPP). No one is funding me.. and no organization or single individual is funding the Cincinnati Tea Party. We don’t get money from TPP. We are happy to take donations, but most of the donations we get are very small from average people. None of us are taking any salary and all of us have spent money and only taken reimbursement for major purchases needed for Tea Party activities. I, personally, have never taken any reimbursements for any of the hundreds I have spent.
Moreover, we do not pay anyone else. The people going to town halls, rallies, etc. are all unpaid and standing up freely for their rights and concerns. That said, I have heard that moveon.org and others are funding Liberal grassroots activists to go to town halls etc. and I’ll admit I tend to believe it though I haven’t verified it. I think their excuse is that we’ve been accused of doing it so why shouldn’t they. That said, even if they are doing it, you won’t find me saying that ALL supporters of HR3200 are paid hacks… they’re just wrong.
Also, another quick bit about TPP. Understand that they’re just a conduit for information. All the real action is at the local level like the CTP and none of them that I know of are getting paid to do what they do. They do it, like the CTP, because they are concerned citizens.
To the point of my original post… Here’s the thing. AARP and other sites show testimonials of people who had a bad experiences with private insruance. This is done with an assumption of supporting HR3200. I suspect you and I are in agreement that not liking things exactly the way they are does not mean suporting HR3200. There are many other options.
Speaking of options. I’m soooooo tired, my friend, of hearing the “well, its not perfect, but… blah blah blah” argument. Sometimes, in a bad situation, doing just anything isn’t better than doing nothing. Much better to take some time to really evaluate the argument. The effort to push Healthcare Reform through in a rush is inexcusable. Even if you believed there was an emergency for the 40 million or so, there could be short term solutions to help them until we can consider a better approach.
For example, I have heard of another plan that would give tax credits to everyone, at a level that would allow them to buy insurance on the market according to their family size. In this plan, health benefits from companies would be taxed (Opponents of the plans highlight this point to villify the Reps and Dems (its a bi-partisan plan) who favor this). For people like me with, thankfully, pretty good benefits through work, this would be a wash. For those without such benefits, the tax credit would allow them to buy insurance on the FREE MARKET. People buying insurance on the free market would improve competition and likely result in better prices and options for everyone.
Now, the above isn’t really any constitutional either. Our Constitution does not really allow for the federal government to cover payment for everyone’s health insurance. That’s not one of the enumerated powers. But, if we have decided, as a nation, that everyone must be officially covered (its not good enough that they can just go to the hospital and not pay) then better to do it in a way that does NOT involve a public option and encourages competition in the free market, leaving it to people to shop and make choices… power to the people!
Personally, of course, I’d still rather see a solution that does not require an increased burden on tax payers and an increase in the number of people who receive more from taxes than they pay. We are already well into the 40% range of people (last I saw) who can vote for new taxes with impunity because they don’t have to pay. Reaching the 50% + mark concerns me, as it should you.
Well. gotta get to other stuff.. take care.
Regards,
Brian
August 13th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Hi Coleman,
Um.. I’m left to guess from your post of that link that you’re saying it is okay that Conservative protesters are being called Nazi’s because O’Reilly has called Lib protesters Nazi before. Is that it?
But what about elected officials who are calling American’s names because we’re voicing our concern (even if some are doing so loudly)? Astroturf, UnAmerican, etc? Do you think that comparing the actions/words O’Reilly to those of elected officials is a fair comparison?
I seem to remember a post by you a while back where you expressed some outrage that people protesting against the war were called unpatriotic. Your opinion, I believe was that it was very American of them to protest (possibly in loud and unruly ways?). Has your view now changed? Or, are you living by the motto that two wrongs make a right?
My answer at the time was that I think the justification for calling the anti-war people unpatriotic was because in a war on terrorism, public discord over the war emboldens our enemies. But, I never thought speaking against the government was unpatriotic and I don’t know anyone who did.
Coleman… I’m starting to feel like you’ll take whichever side of the argument suits you at the time.
All that said, I’ll admit I didn’t read the details of that story. Maybe comparing those kids to Nazi’s was valid. I don’t know what they did. If they really were acting like Nazis it could be a valid comparison. But, for now, given your posting it without an explanation, I’m willing to give you the benefit of a doubt, for sake of argument, that it was a wrong (over the top) comparison by O’Reilly.
Anyway, Coleman, give it some thought. I doubt you really want to justify present wrongs with past wrongs.
Both sides of the political spectrum (myself included at some times) have been too willing to overlook our own “side’s” wrongs when it suits us. That really needs to stop if we’re going to get past all this rhetoric and bickering.
Regards
August 13th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Coleman, taking another quick look at that story, I see that your point may have been that O’Reilly was calling the Nazi’s for chanting and disrupting a speech by Coulter.
This really is not a simple issue. If you read my post about the rallies downtown, you would know that I said I was okay with counter protesters showing up to show their different views, but was not in favor of them chanting such that people couldn’t hear the speakers they came there to hear. As I said then, if Liberal folks were having a rally on the square to, say, favor expansion of government and more taxes, I’d stand across the street, quietly, holding my sign representing my dissent. I wouldn’t try to do anything that would keep them from hearing their speakers. In fact, I might want to hear their speakers to see if anything they said make sense or to know what illogic I needed to focus on countering. But, the point is that I don’t generally agree with being disruptive in such situation.
That said, a town hall is a little bit different. Let’s get real. As a friend of mine recently put it, that is not the place for parliamentary procedure (“I yield the floor”, “so move” and so on”). These, contrary to popular myth (at least until now) are, at least primarily, real people who are there and frustrated at how they’re being treated. I have seen clear cases of people being belittled and mocked for daring to ask hard questions that the Reps and Senators can’t answer. I don’t blame them for getting frustrated and loud. Now, would I do that? Probably not. But, everyone isn’t me and, I wasn’t there, in their shoes? I don’t know what provoked some of these people who are yelling out. Clearly, many have been provoked just as the Tea Party people who DID NOT cause any disruption at the Driehaus meeting were accused even before the meeting of sinister plots (which were all nonsense and which has been proven to be nonsense).
Anyway…
1st, it doesn’t really matter what O’Reilly said.
2nd, as I said to Urge, sometimes freedom of speech gets messy.. But these are REAL PEOPLE who are trying to get their voices heard when they feel like they’re being ignored. I don’t see that as being a very good comparison to the Ann Coulter incidents. Those kids have plenty of opportunities for venues where they are agreed with on a mostly Liberal campus. They should have let the Ann Coulter fans hear what she had to say.
A last point.. While I support the right of people to speak out and even show their anger, I do disagree (personally) with chanting and actions intended to disrupt, even at town halls. People should at least attempt dialogue. No one in the CTP has encouraged or condoned intentionally disruptive behavior.
You’ll note, also, that I don’t try to justify the disruptive behavior by using your own example to point to the fact that Liberals have done this before.
August 14th, 2009 at 5:26 am
Paid Healthcare Reform Support
http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/doc/npo/1299047025.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/08/obama-healthcare-reform.html
Now, clearly the above is real astroturf.
August 14th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Just in case you are sick of the
Obamacare blogs…
Mark Lloyd FCC’s NEW Diversity Officer- IF WE DON’T LEARN FROM THE PAST WE ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT THE SAME MISTAKES! THE FCC POSITIONING TO ASSAULT THE PRIVATE RADIO BROADCASTERS AND LEVY FEES AND FINES WHICH FCC WILL HAND OVER TO PRIVATE RADIO IE. NPR!!!
I WOULD EXPECT THE obamanation TO PULL THIS.. THE RADIO TALK SHOW HOSTS… the conservative ones…..ARE HAVING TO MUCH INFLUENCE ON THE “MASSES” THAT’S YOU AND I>.
AND THE ‘regime” thinks that will we roll over and let the take over of OUR COUNTRY JUST HAPPEN.
WELL I HAVE NEWS FOR THE MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND ALL THE CZARS AND ALL OF THE ‘D……N; POLITICIALS WHO ARE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THE WORK FOR THE UNIONS AND THE GEORGE SOROS OF THE WORLD..
STAND UP!@ TAKE A STAND@@#!~~~
THIS IS OUR COUNTRY! MY FAMILY FOUGHT AND MANY DIED FOR THE FREEDOMS I HAVE TO TODAY
I DONT WANT MY SONS ASKING ME IN 3 OR 5 OR 10 YEARS…
“MOM WHY DIDN’T YOU DO SOMETHING TO STOP THIS INSANITY!”"”"
contact your local American League of Voters .. folks..
make up you own mind.. i am joining them
check out their website..
you still have a choice today..
WHO KNOWS ABOUT TOMORROW!!!!
Patriots UNITE!!!
August 15th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Hey Coleman,
Here’s a link you’ll enjoy!
http://www.breitbart.tv/06-flashback-pelosi-tells-anti-war-protesters-im-a-fan-of-disruptors/
Seriously. As I said, I don’t believe in using old bad behavior to justify new bad behavior (if we are to classify some actions of those speaking out at these townhalls “bad” due to becoming unruly).
But, I do absolutely believe in calling out a politician, like Pelosi, for saying speaking out, even being disruptive, is okay (even patriotic) when she agrees with the view expressed and unamerican when she does not agree with the point of view expressed.
Regards
August 15th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Yeah, well I am not a big fan of Pelosi either. Comments like those are embarrassing and unhelpful. To be completely fair though, the comparison between protesting a war that could very well be determined to have been an illegal action, and protesting health care reform, which could fall under “General Welfare” depending upon how today’s America interprets (or even amends) the living document that is the US Constitution.
However, as long as we’re on the subject of unconstitutional infractions, I think that the previous GOP-led government takes the cake. Unlike today’s administration, they actually sent the president’s policing service (the Secret Service) out to investigate dissenters under the USA PATRIOT act, for much smaller reasons than any of these people here (believe me, I have seen it first hand). Yet, never did I actually consider it to be a “police state” at the time.
Put it another way: had a liberal shown up at a Bush event brandishing a loaded handgun, they would have most certainly been arrested.
As for the O’Reilly clip, I mainly find it amusing his hypocrisy. Maybe you (and Mike) don’t watch his or Beck’s crap as anything more than a comedy show. That’s commendable.
As for the CTP getting the blame for the outbursts at the town hall, maybe you and Mike and the others that contribute to your group don’t cause such outbursts. I did witness at least on person with your “got tea?” shirts trying to budge through the door-keeper in the town hall meeting. He was very insistent in yelling about “cap-and-trade” legislation, which was not a topic of the meeting. This may not be one of your members either.
However, these are people that show up to your events. These are people who you can teach through your “bully pulpit”, so that they don’t bring shame upon your movement, and don’t degrade the public debate with patently wrong information such as “death panels”, “birth in kenya”, “socialism”, “communism”, “fascism”, “police states” or other nonsense.
I am sure that both you and Mike are perfectly intelligent people who can use an argument more informed than “I don’t like government intervention in health insurance because it is ’socialist’”.
I am sure you’re also informed enough to know that the amount of American’s with a negative tax liability is nowhere near 40%. It certainly isn’t even near that in Cincinnati or most other urban areas where poverty tends to get concentrated the most.
So please, bail on the rhetoric, and bail on the “originally written constitution doesn’t specifically grant this power” b.s., because the original constitution was designed to be amendable. It was written as a living document wherein reform and revolution could happen so as to reduce bloody rebellion.
While you’re at it, bail on the reposts of angry hyperbolic scarygrams like the previous post by Pete Wolf. If you really want us to believe that you don’t support the approach to debate that instills irrational fears of straw men into the public, then you shouldn’t post stuff like that.
August 16th, 2009 at 7:57 am
Glad to hear you also do not appreciate the rhetoric of Pelosi and her ilk.
While there is so much in your comment that needs response.. I want to take this comment just to clear up one single important point. You and I, in comments on other blog entries, have gone back and forth about this notion that we are rapidly approaching the point where half the people don’t pay into the system and only take the benefits.
You, now, and hopefully for the last time ever (a moment that shall live on in history) make the following statement:
“I am sure you’re also informed enough to know that the amount of American’s with a negative tax liability is nowhere near 40%.”
Read and learn, my friend.
Per CBS:
“An astonishing 43.4 percent of Americans now pay zero or negative federal income taxes. The number of single or jointly-filing “taxpayers” – the word must be applied sparingly – who pay no taxes or receive government handouts has reached 65.6 million, out of a total of 151 million.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/15/politics/otherpeoplesmoney/main4945874.shtml?
Now, I ask you again, do you really think it is a good thing for our society/country when the majority will be able to vote for handouts that will cost them nothing? Its coming real soon if we “stay the course” with Obama’s flavor of “change”.
Can you to admit this is a valid concern?
Regards
August 16th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Your source is misleading. This is talking about Federal Income Tax returns, exclusively. It doesn’t consider State or Local income taxes, nor does it include property or utility taxes.
Tertiary to it, these people still pay payroll taxes like Medicare and Social Security. These “entitlements” I wouldn’t really consider “tax liability” because it is more like paying for a service you will be receiving in the future.
Additionally, they all likely still pay consumption taxes (like sales tax) on stuff that they purchase. For many income levels, this may even exceed the amount of federal income tax that they pay out per year. Sales tax is one of those taxes, however, where the portion paid out as a percentage of actual income dollars is very much skewed to be maximized at the lower end and middle of the income spectrum. The concept of the progressively increasing income tax bracket scale is meant to even out this imbalance.
As for your point: I’m not really sure now if you are advocating an increase in income taxes or not. Let’s remember that in the past eight years (six of which were completely GOP-run) we lowered taxes without cutting spending (creating more of this “class” of people you speak of — nearly doubling it, according to that article), created a super-sized government bureaucracy in the Dept. of Homeland Security, invaded one country that harbored terrorists that attacked one of our major cities, forgot about it, and then invaded another country that still hasn’t been shown to have done anything to us. All without actually paying for it through cuts elsewhere or tax increases.
One speaker you’ve at at your events voted for all of this: Rep. Steve Chabot.
However, we aren’t talking about another unfunded mandate here. We are talking about a health insurance reform and regulation plan where all parties involved have made a commitment to pay for it right now. Arguably, some of the reforms are meant to get many Americans over problems that exist in the current structure which can result in loss of work, inability to work, or otherwise over-dependence on the government for financial support.
Healthy people will be more productive at work, and people who are confident that they will retain their health security can be more confident in their jobs as well. They are also more likely to take the business risks that drive innovation in this country.
This was the driving principle behind corporate liability limitation with regard to shareholders. The argument has been, time and time again, that people won’t invest their money if they could risk losing much, much more by shouldering the risk of fallout from a failure of such a company (such as a product liability lawsuit). The concept of “limited liability” was meant to secure their non-investments by limiting losses to solely their investments.
We already socialize some risk, in this case. Many times, this socialization is performed through the private insurance market (who uses the pool of all their premiums to pay out claims), but as you’ve seen from the tail-end of the Bush administration, the public is going to be the “last line of defense” because, whether you want to admit it or not, the negative social consequences of many of these failures would likely have negatively impacted your life in many ways.
Many of the reform proposals are meant to eliminate barriers that currently prevent existing Americans from making choices that don’t increase their health risks, yet still increase the amount of health-care related risk they expose themselves to simply due to the structure of the system that has formed to this day. For instance: changing jobs is the one of the most risky moves that a single-earner in a single-earner household can make, regarding how it exposes them to health care risk.
As far as the “public option” goes, I think that most of us are pretty intelligent in this country. We should be able to try a “public plan option” that is governed by legislators or by the executive branch, in order to test whether we the public can create a plan structure that is better than what the private sector has created to date. The best part: the structure of that plan would be open and available to all private firms to borrow ideas from, if they so wished.
Frankly, being against a “public plan option” because “it leads us down the road to socialism” is a non-argument. The responses “that’s ridiculous!” or “so what?” are perfectly legitimate follow-ups that you really need to answer in order to convince anybody that you aren’t thinking irrationally.
August 16th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
As for your question, which I didn’t really answer directly: No, I don’t think it is much of a concern, because I think your characterization of the problem is incorrect.