Last week, my mother came up to see me and we went to see Mamma Mia! as performed at Robinson Center here in Little Rock. For those that are unfamiliar with the musical, it consists entirely of music written and originally performed by ABBA, set to a storyline that does NOT trace the roots of ABBA; rather, it follows a two day journey of a girl and her mother through the rigours of putting on a wedding. Exciting stuff, let me tell you.
I originally saw ABBA in Las Vegas (I think it was being performed at the Wynne) with Mom and I have to say that the Little Rock performance paled in comparison. It seemed as if the music was being played louder than the vocals in order to cover them up. If I hadn't known the words to the songs, I wouldn't have understood what they were saying. Plus, I thought the actress playing Donna Sheridan used a little too much in the way of vibrato, trills, and glissandos. A little goes a long way....she went too far.
I did, however, see my friend Phil Frana there and during intermission, I had to go over and say 'hello' since I hadn't seen him in three weeks. I can only go so long without talking with my Phil. During that ten minutes, I made a startling conclusion: It is remarkably easy to network in Arkansas. In that short span of time, we were able to identify somewhere in the vicinity of five to ten people and also label their positions, some of which would be positions of "power" in local governments. Had I been a reporter, it would have been very easy to perform an ambush interview to find out what these guys think. Too bad recording devices are banned in Robinson Center. Too bad I'm also not a reporter. Too bad I don't really know anything about local affairs, preferring to stay abreast of national/international politics. I'm intense like that.
But it got me thinking, with all these easily made connections, why am I not utilizing my degree in Public Administration by leveraging some of that easy-to-get networking here in Arkansas? Why am I whiling away my time at PetSmart grooming dogs? I mean, after all, dog grooming isn't exactly glamourous. I get pissed and shit on no less than five times a week. I make decent money, but I have inconsistent hours. Not to mention the entirely unglamourous condition of not getting to dress up. I'm relegated to windsuit pants, a t-shirt, and a cruddy smock every day. Not the pinnacle of fashion, lemmetellya.
But, like Sophie in Mamma Mia!, I came to the conclusion that I'm not garnering for a more glamourous position (in my case, a more presitigious job; in her case, a white wedding) because I'm perfectly content to stay where I am for now. She wants to explore the world. I would like that too (finances prevent it at the moment), but I'm content staying home. We're both content with exploring who we are at this moment.....not who we are after some life-defining event.
I'll be honest: It's tough watching my friends go off to Graduate School and get real jobs. Sometimes I think to myself, "Fuck PetSmart. I'm gonna get my Masters." But then I cool down and realize that the best thing in life is not what the future may or may not hold; it's being content with what you have now.
In the back of my head, I hear Buddha saying, "Take the Middle Way."
Yes, Sir. I think I shall.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Nobel Prize: Recap
I think the following comic explains the Obama Nobel Peace Prize perfectly.
Now, if we could only uncover whether or not Obama actually is from the future.
(Starts devising experiment to test for knowledge of future endeavors.)
Friday, October 9, 2009
Nobel Prizes for Peace
Turns out that Obama won the Nobel Peace Price. Impressive.
I'll go out on a limb and make a prediction: Instead of reporting this and covering this news, conservative media outlets will no doubt turn their attention to healthcare and will actually try to be a part of the debate to avoid talking about the fact that Obama won the prize. No doubt they would come across as accusing him of 'affirmative action' anyway.
BTW, this puts Obama in the same ranks as Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson who both won the prize while in office. Jimmy Carter won a few years back, but he hadn't been President in 30 years or so. Woodrow Wilson was also a blatant racist. He segregated the Navy when it previously hadn't been. He was a real nasty piece of work.
I'm sure the Conservative media outlets will be happy to point out that WW was a racist as proof that the Nobel Prize is corrupt.
I'll go out on a limb and make a prediction: Instead of reporting this and covering this news, conservative media outlets will no doubt turn their attention to healthcare and will actually try to be a part of the debate to avoid talking about the fact that Obama won the prize. No doubt they would come across as accusing him of 'affirmative action' anyway.
BTW, this puts Obama in the same ranks as Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson who both won the prize while in office. Jimmy Carter won a few years back, but he hadn't been President in 30 years or so. Woodrow Wilson was also a blatant racist. He segregated the Navy when it previously hadn't been. He was a real nasty piece of work.
I'm sure the Conservative media outlets will be happy to point out that WW was a racist as proof that the Nobel Prize is corrupt.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Universal Healthcare Backup Plan
It's starting to look more and more like there won't be a Public Option in the upcoming healthcare legislation. If there isn't a public option, then I wouldn't refer to this bill as anything approximating healthcare reform. I'm not even completely certain that all the loopholes regarding pre-existing condition will be closed.
If that's the case, then there needs to be some back-up plan in the works. I suggest the following (which is nearly the same as what we're suggesting for the public option, but proposed and worded diffferently).
1) Extend Medicare to those ages 55+. Essentially, the people that are most vocally opposed to the Public Option are those in the 45-65+ range. They're worried that Medicare either A) Won't be there when they turn 65, or B) worried that Medicare is going to start cutting back their coverage. Of course, those of with brains know that isn't the case, so billing healthcare reform as 'Extending Eligible Age of Medicare' negates the connotation of "Cuts to Medicare."
2) Enact a provision that a person of any age may opt for private insurance. Of course, we know that insurance companies basically default on your coverage once you turn 65 because they know that you're covered under the government's insurance program. Enacting a provision so that people that hit 55 may either keep their coverage (and the insurance companies cannot drop them, as long as they pay their premiums), or opt for Medicare.
3) Extend the coverage of SCHIP so that every child under the age of 18 is eligible. The nearest statistics I could find on coverage of SCHIP was around 6.6 million children in 2006. Of the some-odd 75 million children in the US, 8.3 million do not have some form of health insurance. I don't know the best way to do this, but it would seem as if the coverage rate was either expanded to include higher percentage levels of poverty, or if funding were simply doubled, then the 8.3 million uninsured children could receive some form of coverage. Like I said, I don't know enough about income disparities and efficiencies to know the best way to insure children, but I don't think there is any reason that a child should not have coverage, especially if it's because a parent can't afford it. It's not a child's fault if the parent can't afford medical insurance. (I vote that we just cover children under 18 via Medicare and get rid of the SCHIP component. I also vote that we make this mandatory coverage, regardless of whether the parent wants their child covered or not. We make them enroll in school; we should make them enroll in health care.)
4) Include a section wherein every few years (let's just say '5') the eligibility age to enroll in Medicare is reduced by 5. So, in 2014, the eligible age to enroll in Medicare becomes 50. In 2019, the eligible age becomes 45. So (unless other changes were made), by the year 2045, every adult in America would be eligible for coverage under Medicare and every child would already have coverage. This would be more difficult to pass (incrementalism always is); however, it would be easier in a few years time to simply add this portion into the existing laws. After all, if you vote to extend Medicare coverage by five years, you've got five years of voters that are in favor of it.
I have other 'Band-Aid' ideas that could improve the situation without being a full-blown public option, but I don't need to go into them here because hopefully, some of the Democrats will get their heads out of their asses and realize that the public option (Republican ass-hattery aside) is what the population wants. And I don't care about the portion of the population that has insurance now (the 65+ers, and those with private insurance) that are yelling they don't want private insurance. I'm talking about the portion of the population that right now does not have health insurance. They're yelling that they need something. Democrats (Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, and Mike Ross) need to forget about the politics, the town hall meetings, and the media (FoxSmear) and simply do what makes the most sense: the public option.
I hope this is my last post on the current health care divide. I'd like to talk about something else (not that anybody is twisting my arm into talking about this).
If that's the case, then there needs to be some back-up plan in the works. I suggest the following (which is nearly the same as what we're suggesting for the public option, but proposed and worded diffferently).
1) Extend Medicare to those ages 55+. Essentially, the people that are most vocally opposed to the Public Option are those in the 45-65+ range. They're worried that Medicare either A) Won't be there when they turn 65, or B) worried that Medicare is going to start cutting back their coverage. Of course, those of with brains know that isn't the case, so billing healthcare reform as 'Extending Eligible Age of Medicare' negates the connotation of "Cuts to Medicare."
2) Enact a provision that a person of any age may opt for private insurance. Of course, we know that insurance companies basically default on your coverage once you turn 65 because they know that you're covered under the government's insurance program. Enacting a provision so that people that hit 55 may either keep their coverage (and the insurance companies cannot drop them, as long as they pay their premiums), or opt for Medicare.
3) Extend the coverage of SCHIP so that every child under the age of 18 is eligible. The nearest statistics I could find on coverage of SCHIP was around 6.6 million children in 2006. Of the some-odd 75 million children in the US, 8.3 million do not have some form of health insurance. I don't know the best way to do this, but it would seem as if the coverage rate was either expanded to include higher percentage levels of poverty, or if funding were simply doubled, then the 8.3 million uninsured children could receive some form of coverage. Like I said, I don't know enough about income disparities and efficiencies to know the best way to insure children, but I don't think there is any reason that a child should not have coverage, especially if it's because a parent can't afford it. It's not a child's fault if the parent can't afford medical insurance. (I vote that we just cover children under 18 via Medicare and get rid of the SCHIP component. I also vote that we make this mandatory coverage, regardless of whether the parent wants their child covered or not. We make them enroll in school; we should make them enroll in health care.)
4) Include a section wherein every few years (let's just say '5') the eligibility age to enroll in Medicare is reduced by 5. So, in 2014, the eligible age to enroll in Medicare becomes 50. In 2019, the eligible age becomes 45. So (unless other changes were made), by the year 2045, every adult in America would be eligible for coverage under Medicare and every child would already have coverage. This would be more difficult to pass (incrementalism always is); however, it would be easier in a few years time to simply add this portion into the existing laws. After all, if you vote to extend Medicare coverage by five years, you've got five years of voters that are in favor of it.
I have other 'Band-Aid' ideas that could improve the situation without being a full-blown public option, but I don't need to go into them here because hopefully, some of the Democrats will get their heads out of their asses and realize that the public option (Republican ass-hattery aside) is what the population wants. And I don't care about the portion of the population that has insurance now (the 65+ers, and those with private insurance) that are yelling they don't want private insurance. I'm talking about the portion of the population that right now does not have health insurance. They're yelling that they need something. Democrats (Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, and Mike Ross) need to forget about the politics, the town hall meetings, and the media (FoxSmear) and simply do what makes the most sense: the public option.
I hope this is my last post on the current health care divide. I'd like to talk about something else (not that anybody is twisting my arm into talking about this).
Monday, September 28, 2009
Plagiarism and ReTweeting
A few days ago, I tweeted this:
"OMG! Even if I was a birther, why would I sent $30 to this guy to send a few faxes? Aren't faxes, like, free?"
In response to this:
Today, I first noticed on the Rachel Maddow Show that she had a segment in which she discussed this Informercial, which apparently only appeared on the local station at Lubbock, TX. She pointed out that the time slot and the station cost LivePrayer (the creators of the Informercial) about $100. Bill Keller, the host, is apparently an ex-con, and as the Rachel Maddow Show suggest, a current con-man because of this scheme.
For $30, LivePrayer will send a fax to fifty "Attorney Generals [sic]" AND to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding an invesgtigation into Obama's birth. In addition, they will add your name to a petition to send to GOP leaders (notice they don't care if Democratic leaders get the petition or not) and you'll also get a bumper sticker.
So, if LivePrayer convinces four people to send money, then Bill Keller makes a profit off of this thirty minute video. At these kind of prices, he'll make the move to other stations before too much longer.
I later noticed this story airing on Chris Matthews' Hardball, though it was less of a segment than a sideshow item on the Hardball Sideshow, which leads me to believe (though I have no proof on how the inner workings of MSNBC are) that a higher up suggested Maddow and Matthews include a segment on their show about this crackpot. (PS I didn't watch Countdown tonight because it's just not the same without Olbermann. I hope his family is doing okay. I know his dad has been in ill health for some while now.)
I, however, would like to propose a different scenario. I like to think that Rachel Maddow subscribes to my Tweets through some TweetBot user name and that she scooped the story from me, even going so far as to use my line, "why would I send $30 to this guy for a few faxes? Aren't faxes, like, free?"
So, I request, nay, I DEMAND a reference from the venerable Rachel Maddow, lest I charge her with intellectual dishonesty and, dare I say it?, PLAGIARISM!
I'm just joking, I wouldn't do that. However, I would like to close with a few questions:
When you RT something via Twitter that is itself a RT, how many people should you reference in your RT? I think it should always be two unless the 140 character parameter limits you.
Also, if you reference something in real life that you read in a Tweet, should you recognize the fact that you first uncoverered this information in Tweet form?
"OMG! Even if I was a birther, why would I sent $30 to this guy to send a few faxes? Aren't faxes, like, free?"
In response to this:
Today, I first noticed on the Rachel Maddow Show that she had a segment in which she discussed this Informercial, which apparently only appeared on the local station at Lubbock, TX. She pointed out that the time slot and the station cost LivePrayer (the creators of the Informercial) about $100. Bill Keller, the host, is apparently an ex-con, and as the Rachel Maddow Show suggest, a current con-man because of this scheme.
For $30, LivePrayer will send a fax to fifty "Attorney Generals [sic]" AND to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding an invesgtigation into Obama's birth. In addition, they will add your name to a petition to send to GOP leaders (notice they don't care if Democratic leaders get the petition or not) and you'll also get a bumper sticker.
So, if LivePrayer convinces four people to send money, then Bill Keller makes a profit off of this thirty minute video. At these kind of prices, he'll make the move to other stations before too much longer.
I later noticed this story airing on Chris Matthews' Hardball, though it was less of a segment than a sideshow item on the Hardball Sideshow, which leads me to believe (though I have no proof on how the inner workings of MSNBC are) that a higher up suggested Maddow and Matthews include a segment on their show about this crackpot. (PS I didn't watch Countdown tonight because it's just not the same without Olbermann. I hope his family is doing okay. I know his dad has been in ill health for some while now.)
I, however, would like to propose a different scenario. I like to think that Rachel Maddow subscribes to my Tweets through some TweetBot user name and that she scooped the story from me, even going so far as to use my line, "why would I send $30 to this guy for a few faxes? Aren't faxes, like, free?"
So, I request, nay, I DEMAND a reference from the venerable Rachel Maddow, lest I charge her with intellectual dishonesty and, dare I say it?, PLAGIARISM!
I'm just joking, I wouldn't do that. However, I would like to close with a few questions:
When you RT something via Twitter that is itself a RT, how many people should you reference in your RT? I think it should always be two unless the 140 character parameter limits you.
Also, if you reference something in real life that you read in a Tweet, should you recognize the fact that you first uncoverered this information in Tweet form?
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Obama Won't Appear on FoxNews???!! WHAAA???
Okay, I'll make this real short. FoxSmear is not a news organization. It does not enhance the field of journalism, their research is spotty if extant, and they are not above making up facts. In the real world, we call that lying, but with FoxSmear, it's fair and balanced.
Last week, Obama went on a whirlwind tour of the major news networks (of which I think it is vain of FoxSmear to count itself in the same league as ABC, CBS, NBC, and Univision) but did not go onto Chris Wallace's show, which is the morning Sunday show on FoxSmear. This upset many people at FoxSmear, not the least of which was Bill O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly had Chris Wallace on his show to talk about how Wallace's feelings were hurt at not being included in the cameraderie. Nowhere in this exchance do they discuss the possibility that Wallace's show may not have the proper viewing audience, that the President was already committed to five stations making an appearance on Wallace's show that morning impossible, or any other plausible scenario other than Obama has it in for FoxSmear.
Or maybe there's another reason:
That's right. Chris Wallace, broadcast journalist extraordaire, calls the Obama Administration the "biggest bunch of crybabies" he has ever dealt with. Besides the name-calling, is it hypocritical of Wallace to call the Obama Administration "crybabies" while he himself is crying over the fact that Obama won't appear on his show.
Perhaps it was just a slow news day because these two are essentially discussing how they are unable to generate any news by Obama not appearing on "Fox News [sic] Sunday" by not generating any news in a segment on the fact that Obama is not appearing on "Fox News [sic] Sunday." Circular news generation logic, to be sure.
In the interest of being fair and balanced, it is possible that what Wallace says is true: that the Obama Administration calls him daily to complain about the types of stories being levied against them. If this is the case, I would welcome Chris Wallace to appear on this Blog and provide some documentation (e-mails, phone conversations with dates and subject, etc.) that corroborates this fact.
Otherwise, I'm forced to conclude (though this has been a running standard in my mind for some time now) that FoxSmear is NOT a reputable news organization and that Obama not appearing on FoxSmear is tantamount to Obama NOT appearing on the Playboy network. No news is going to be generated either way.
Though, I get the feeling that if Obama did appear on the Playboy network, FoxSmear would have a field day even if what Obama was doing on Playboy was reputable.
Last week, Obama went on a whirlwind tour of the major news networks (of which I think it is vain of FoxSmear to count itself in the same league as ABC, CBS, NBC, and Univision) but did not go onto Chris Wallace's show, which is the morning Sunday show on FoxSmear. This upset many people at FoxSmear, not the least of which was Bill O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly had Chris Wallace on his show to talk about how Wallace's feelings were hurt at not being included in the cameraderie. Nowhere in this exchance do they discuss the possibility that Wallace's show may not have the proper viewing audience, that the President was already committed to five stations making an appearance on Wallace's show that morning impossible, or any other plausible scenario other than Obama has it in for FoxSmear.
Or maybe there's another reason:
That's right. Chris Wallace, broadcast journalist extraordaire, calls the Obama Administration the "biggest bunch of crybabies" he has ever dealt with. Besides the name-calling, is it hypocritical of Wallace to call the Obama Administration "crybabies" while he himself is crying over the fact that Obama won't appear on his show.
Perhaps it was just a slow news day because these two are essentially discussing how they are unable to generate any news by Obama not appearing on "Fox News [sic] Sunday" by not generating any news in a segment on the fact that Obama is not appearing on "Fox News [sic] Sunday." Circular news generation logic, to be sure.
In the interest of being fair and balanced, it is possible that what Wallace says is true: that the Obama Administration calls him daily to complain about the types of stories being levied against them. If this is the case, I would welcome Chris Wallace to appear on this Blog and provide some documentation (e-mails, phone conversations with dates and subject, etc.) that corroborates this fact.
Otherwise, I'm forced to conclude (though this has been a running standard in my mind for some time now) that FoxSmear is NOT a reputable news organization and that Obama not appearing on FoxSmear is tantamount to Obama NOT appearing on the Playboy network. No news is going to be generated either way.
Though, I get the feeling that if Obama did appear on the Playboy network, FoxSmear would have a field day even if what Obama was doing on Playboy was reputable.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Process Governmentalism
I've always been more concerned with the questions, thought processes, and data input concerning an answer, rather than the answer itself. When I was younger (and to a lesser extent today) I would challenge myself to "prove" a point using a traditionally opposing argument. Something along the lines of 1) We're a Christian nation, 2) Jesus doesn't like guns, therefore 3) Guns should be banned.
I don't actually think (nor does anyone reputable) that we're a Christian nation, but I do think guns should be outlawed. I use a political example because I'm concerned with some of the process governmentalism going on today.
For instance, a large portion of today's debate in the political arena surrounds health coverage for all Americans. On one side, we have the elected majority attempting to capitalize on a large market share of the necessary votes in Congress to drive through a bill that is sub-optimally aimed at covering those that do not have health insurance, or more accurately, can't get affordable health coverage.
On the other side, we have an elected minority that feels as if it has been shoved in the corner and is lashing out at anything even approximating healthcare. This side attempts to leverage arguments and counter-arguments against any healthcare legislation, many attempts of which disagree with one another!
Which begs the question: If I was a Democrat, what Conservative argument would I use to justify healthcare?
To which I would respond, healthy people are more productive. More productive people earn higher incomes over a longer period of time. This higher income over a course of many years results in multiplier effects that radiate outward and improve the economy as a whole. Naturally, some people (such as the retired) will not create any multiplicative effects because they will not be generating any new productivity. This is why it makes as much sense (if not more) to guarantee health coverage for younger Americans (who could conceivably be taken off the field of productivity if they die or are rendered disabled because of a sickness they couldn't get cured because of lack of healthcare) as it does to insure the elderly (through Medicare).
Don't get me wrong. I think this is an abysmal excuse to legislate a more socialized healthcare. The real reason is the moral imperative: we as a nation have a duty to help our fellow citizens. While the economics of universal health coverage simply make good economic sense, human beings cannot be quantified as a dollar rating. Or at least they shouldn't be.
Another argument from the Democrats using traditional Republican/conservative arguments: National Defense. If a nation's population is healthy, then in the event that the nation had to reinstate the draft, or there was a foreign invasion on American soil, the American military would be less encumbered by the fact that it had a healthy population that could rise up and fight alongside the active military.
Unfortunately for the purposes of arguing the opposing viewpoint, there's not really a strategy the Republicans/conservatives could use for arguing against Universal Health Coverage that uses a traditionally Liberal/Democratic argument. The Republicans are trying to use the argument that nationalized healthcare would impinge upon our freedoms (I don't buy the reasoning that anything the government does is innately doomed to failure), by stating that the government takeover of healthcare would limit choices because more people would flock to the public option because it would be subsidized and so much more affordable. But if you're taxes are paying for it anyway, why wouldn't you flock to the public option? It'd be like recouping some of your investment. As to choice, individuals in Arkansas would have access to a wide variety of public options. Other states would have other choices. In Arkansas, anyway, I would have more options with the Federal government's plans, than I would if I searched through the Private options. So, the "impinges on our freedoms" argument doesn't really work, since essentially the public option IS private insurers ultimately.
The only other 'liberal' argument I can think of that the Republican/conservatives might be able to use is one regarding civil rights. If it could be shown that because a public option has a habit of rejecting someone's coverage on an race/creed/religion/class/sex basis, then the Republicans could argue that the public option is unfair to a certain segment of the population and that it should not be legislated for. Of course, then they would have to admit that the private insurers do the same thing, which as I understand they haven't. Neither have I seen a standard argument for removing the 'pre-existing conditions' clause from the Insurer's Toolbox for Rejecting Coverage. I also get the feeling that if liberal/Democrats felt that a public option would be additionally racist/sexist/etc.ist, then they would probably encourage another option.
So, essentially, since I'm not able to argue the 'Null' hypothesis successfully in the Republican instance (and come to think of it, neither can I successfully argue the traditional Republican argument anyway), the opposite must be true, and the public option is indeed the way to go in the National Debate. There is always, however, the theory that I have not accumulated enough evidence and statistics and that a more superior answer is out there.
To that I say: Single Payer.
I don't actually think (nor does anyone reputable) that we're a Christian nation, but I do think guns should be outlawed. I use a political example because I'm concerned with some of the process governmentalism going on today.
For instance, a large portion of today's debate in the political arena surrounds health coverage for all Americans. On one side, we have the elected majority attempting to capitalize on a large market share of the necessary votes in Congress to drive through a bill that is sub-optimally aimed at covering those that do not have health insurance, or more accurately, can't get affordable health coverage.
On the other side, we have an elected minority that feels as if it has been shoved in the corner and is lashing out at anything even approximating healthcare. This side attempts to leverage arguments and counter-arguments against any healthcare legislation, many attempts of which disagree with one another!
Which begs the question: If I was a Democrat, what Conservative argument would I use to justify healthcare?
To which I would respond, healthy people are more productive. More productive people earn higher incomes over a longer period of time. This higher income over a course of many years results in multiplier effects that radiate outward and improve the economy as a whole. Naturally, some people (such as the retired) will not create any multiplicative effects because they will not be generating any new productivity. This is why it makes as much sense (if not more) to guarantee health coverage for younger Americans (who could conceivably be taken off the field of productivity if they die or are rendered disabled because of a sickness they couldn't get cured because of lack of healthcare) as it does to insure the elderly (through Medicare).
Don't get me wrong. I think this is an abysmal excuse to legislate a more socialized healthcare. The real reason is the moral imperative: we as a nation have a duty to help our fellow citizens. While the economics of universal health coverage simply make good economic sense, human beings cannot be quantified as a dollar rating. Or at least they shouldn't be.
Another argument from the Democrats using traditional Republican/conservative arguments: National Defense. If a nation's population is healthy, then in the event that the nation had to reinstate the draft, or there was a foreign invasion on American soil, the American military would be less encumbered by the fact that it had a healthy population that could rise up and fight alongside the active military.
Unfortunately for the purposes of arguing the opposing viewpoint, there's not really a strategy the Republicans/conservatives could use for arguing against Universal Health Coverage that uses a traditionally Liberal/Democratic argument. The Republicans are trying to use the argument that nationalized healthcare would impinge upon our freedoms (I don't buy the reasoning that anything the government does is innately doomed to failure), by stating that the government takeover of healthcare would limit choices because more people would flock to the public option because it would be subsidized and so much more affordable. But if you're taxes are paying for it anyway, why wouldn't you flock to the public option? It'd be like recouping some of your investment. As to choice, individuals in Arkansas would have access to a wide variety of public options. Other states would have other choices. In Arkansas, anyway, I would have more options with the Federal government's plans, than I would if I searched through the Private options. So, the "impinges on our freedoms" argument doesn't really work, since essentially the public option IS private insurers ultimately.
The only other 'liberal' argument I can think of that the Republican/conservatives might be able to use is one regarding civil rights. If it could be shown that because a public option has a habit of rejecting someone's coverage on an race/creed/religion/class/sex basis, then the Republicans could argue that the public option is unfair to a certain segment of the population and that it should not be legislated for. Of course, then they would have to admit that the private insurers do the same thing, which as I understand they haven't. Neither have I seen a standard argument for removing the 'pre-existing conditions' clause from the Insurer's Toolbox for Rejecting Coverage. I also get the feeling that if liberal/Democrats felt that a public option would be additionally racist/sexist/etc.ist, then they would probably encourage another option.
So, essentially, since I'm not able to argue the 'Null' hypothesis successfully in the Republican instance (and come to think of it, neither can I successfully argue the traditional Republican argument anyway), the opposite must be true, and the public option is indeed the way to go in the National Debate. There is always, however, the theory that I have not accumulated enough evidence and statistics and that a more superior answer is out there.
To that I say: Single Payer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
