Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us.
Digg!
furl
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!PHYSICIANS, HEAL THYSELVES: Poor Karl Marx, the alleged father of global socialism. He must be spinning so hard in his grave that some enterprising capitalist could use his dusty bones as a rototiller. The term “socialism” has come under such abuse recently that had Marx trademarked the word — as the Scientologists have patented their path to enlightenment — Karl’s heirs could no doubt sue a lot of people. I can sort of understand how the Obama-nators got their collective underwear in a knot because the prez decided to intrude upon their children’s first day of school with a few inspirational remarks. But to denounce this as “socialist” reflects the extent to which the American education system has produced a nation of political illiterates.
Angry Poodle
On a normal day, the pissed-off wacko fringe now defining the Republican Party suffers no shortage of imagination. Say what you will about attacking Obama’s right to occupy the Oval Office by impugning the integrity of his birth certificate; it is nothing if not creative. Based on this, I would have expected a more rhetorically inventive assault on the healthcare reform package now coming out of Washington. But the boogeyman of socialism? Sure, it’s charmingly retro, in that post-ironic nihilistic-hipster-poseur sort of way. But didn’t the Berlin Wall collapse about 20 years ago? Didn’t the Evil Empire declare Chapter 11? Can’t they do better than that?
Critics of healthcare reform may be recklessly imprecise when it comes to political theory, but they obviously have studied their history. Every time the subject of national healthcare reform has been broached in the past 60 years, critics scream “socialized medicine” and the prospect of universal healthcare goes away. It works, so why mess with success?
At the end of World War II, California’s governor, Earl Warren — a card-carrying Republican — decided it would be nice to offer the returning GIs some form of universal healthcare. He suggested a 3-percent tax — to be exacted from worker and employer alike — to pay the cost of this outlandish new healthcare system. Thanks to an effective, if hysterical, campaign launched by big business, big labor, and the medical establishment, Warren’s attempt at socialized medicine was strangled in the cradle. It would take the John Birch Society until the early 1960s to expose Warren — then serving as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court — as the Pinko-Commie-Rat-Basturd he, along with former president Dwight Eisenhower, really was.
A few years after Warren tried and failed, Harry S. Truman — the Democrat who officially launched the Cold War to contain communism anywhere, anytime, and at any cost — took up the issue of universal health insurance. “Give ’em hell,” Harry liked to say. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” But where healthcare was concerned, Harry was forced to flee with his hot pads blazing. It was the usual suspects whipping up the usual hysteria about “socialized medicine.” Truman, who authorized dropping the atomic bomb on civilian populations, would argue, “I do not understand a mind which sees a gracious beneficence in spending money to slay and maim human beings in almost unimaginable numbers and deprecates the expenditure of a smaller sum to patch up the ills of mankind.” It was nice line — if a bit ornate — but got him nowhere.
Critics of healthcare reform were caught napping in the mid 1960s when Lyndon B. Johnson, that twisted Machiavellian genius, managed to win approval for Medicare and Medicaid. But these programs granted healthcare for poor people and old folks, neither of whom was especially attractive to private insurance providers. Today, these two socialistic programs offer care for about 70 million Americans who would otherwise find themselves uninsured or drastically underinsured. In 1971, Richard Nixon, a Republican who made his political bones as a ruthless Red Baiter, proposed universal health legislation, noting at the time that 25 million Americans were tragically uninsured. (Since then, the official estimate has increased to 46 million; unofficial estimates tag it at 60 million. Another 25 million are believed to be underinsured.) Among other things, Nixon wanted to stop insurance companies from cutting people off once they got sick or looked like they might. Given Nixon’s impeccable credentials as an anti-commie street fighter, the rhetoric about socialized medicine was not quite as intense. But just enough to kill the bill. When Hillary and Bill Clinton tried to pass their version of healthcare reform, the Cold War had recently ended, and socialism wasn’t quite so frightening. Trying out a new approach, the medical and insurance lobbies launched a folksy advertising blitz that successfully scared the hell out of senior citizens.
Which brings us to today. It’s likely that any healthcare reform bill will suffer from unintended consequences. But the status quo is hardly working. Just here in the two congressional districts that encompass Santa Barbara County, there are 212,000 uninsured people. In these two districts — represented by the yin and yang of Lois Capps and Elton Gallegly — 1,350 families have been forced to declare bankruptcy because of medical expenses. In California, 7.7 million lack any insurance, and most of these, according to the L.A. Times, are working. Insurance cost borne by employers has risen by 120 percent in the past 10 years, and the cost of employee-borne deductibles has risen by 400 percent. I know some people with insurance worry that they will be adversely affected by any insurance reform. But we already pay higher insurance rates to cover the costs associated with treating the uninsured. One recent study estimated the average policy holder pays $1,100 a year in higher premiums because of this.
If Congress fails to pass meaningful healthcare reform, it can only be attributed to mass stupidity, not to mention a lobbying juggernaut that spends $1.4 million a day bending Congress’s ear. Reading over the fine print of my insurance policy, I discovered that stupidity qualifies as a pre-existing condition, for which no coverage is available. Likewise, I found that cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face is entirely an elective procedure, like a nose job in reverse. All costs are out of pocket. You do the math. And if you still think the bill is being rushed through, why don’t you dig up the remains of Earl Warren and ask that dead socialist what he thinks.
Related Links
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.
Previous Month
Comments
Discussion Guidelines
Earl Warren is buried in Arlington National Cemetery, which the socialists stole from Robert E. Lee's family. We can dig up those graves and give it back!
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 2 • Thumbs Down: 2 of 2
sevendolphins (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2009 at 5:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Unfortunately the liberal left (aka progressives) DO suffer a shortage of intelligence. Which makes them the useful idiots like the writer of this column. I don't expect more from the INDIE but let it be known: If you want to have a real debate on the issue, stop slinging mud. Speaking for many informed moderates, Democrat, Independent and Republican, we are not the "fringe" -- we are AMERICA.
Until and if the Obama administration comes up with a plan that MAKES SENSE we will continue to fight against the current flawed "reforms" being proposed.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 4 • Thumbs Down: 4 of 4
maximum (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2009 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pot. Kettle. Black.......
MAXIMUM !!!!!
Self-appointed speaker for "many informed moderates, Democrat, Independent and Republican" needs to take a moment, breathe, and read over what he writes:
"If you want to have a real debate on the issue, stop slinging mud." -- maximum
Of course that gem was preceded by the unprovoked comment:
"Unfortunately the liberal left (aka progressives) DO suffer a shortage of intelligence. Which makes them the useful idiots like the writer of this column." -- maximum
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 3 of 3 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 3
binky (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2009 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not sure how maximum sees a shortage of intelligence. To wildly insult someone because your opinions do not match is pure idiocy. Work with us for a solution instead of "slinging mud". AMERICA is derived from all of us and too many of us don't have good insurance; if any.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 3 of 3 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 3
sbpaddy (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2009 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why do the poor need health insurance anyway? Can't they just go somewhere and die quietly? It's not like they are real people or anything. Remember true patriotism is about looking out for number one and screw anyone who has the misfortune to be poor or unlucky.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 3 of 3 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 3
Noletaman (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How about some of these questions, folks?
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44...
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 1 of 1
maximum (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2009 at 5:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My wifes' firm with 40 employees has seen annual increases in insurance premiums of 11% or more putting them on a par with national averages of 120 % increases over the last 10 years . Have not seen much movement from the G.O.P. over these last 10 years toward addressing an obviously unsustainable situation . If it wasn't for the Dems we wouldn't even be talking about it . Get a grip Max , this is a real crisis .
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 2 of 2 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 2
geeber (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2009 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Social Security is facing a real crisis too, but the Democrats shot down the reform attempts a couple of years ago. Most politicians today care more about their party than their country.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 2 • Thumbs Down: 2 of 2
Kratatoa (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2009 at 10:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank goodness the country turned against the cynical ploy the Republican right had in mind in attempting to do away with Social Security!
Had the U.S. Citizenry been talked into Private Retirement Accounts -- taking Social Security savings or reducing benefits to instead invest in a Social Security Guarantee Plan or Trust Fund Investment Plan -- It's almost impossible to imagine that our current multiplicity of economic woes -- or social misery -- could be worse.
But they certainly would be had Social Security been diddled by the Bush Administration. Cutting payroll taxes to release funds for such private investments, and numerous hybrids were also tossed around -- back when these types of investments went up year after year.
Yeah, that would have been something.
The stand against changing Social Security (the way it was presented at that time) was one of the last true acts of governance the Dems have completed.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 2 of 2 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 2
binky (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2009 at 11:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
maximum asks, "How about some of these questions, folks?"
Indeed, a whole field of strawmen. Why don't you pick one out and make a case for it...or pipe down.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 1
SezMe (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2009 at 1:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The parallels between the attempts to reform health care and the attempts to reform Social Security are remarkable.
In both cases we have a clear crisis looming. One side proposes some reforms. The other side engages in shrill partisan attacks and scare tactics (death panels! senior citizens gambling in the stock market!). The discussion dies. Nothing gets done. We move one day closer to disaster.
A "true act of governance" indeed.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 1 of 1
Kratatoa (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2009 at 2:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Everyone is of course talking about Joe Wilson heckling Obama as he talks about health care reform.
Take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBxmEGG71...
Democrats booing and heckling Bush as he talks about Social Security reform during his state of the union address.
Like I said, the parallels are remarkable.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
Kratatoa (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2009 at 2:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The low key booing, foot-shuffling and even hissing by the opposition party are customary during speeches by the President to a joint session of Congress. Jumping out of your seat, pointing a finger at the President and YELLING "You lie!", is not customary. In the run up to the Civil War this sort of behavior was more normal, which makes me a little nervous about the current state of our Union. Especially since there are groups and even Gov. Perry making speeches about Texas seceding from the Union. These are crazy times.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 1
fishpol (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2009 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Fishpol, I think that kind of behavior has only been "customary" very recently. I can recall people booing and hissing in Congress during speeches by Clinton, GWB, and now Obama, but not before that.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
Kratatoa (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2009 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe not booing and hissing, but it seems back in the good old days, things were considerably worse:
::: "...there is a persuasive argument to be made that, when seen in historical context, recent decades have seen advances in matters of decorum and civility on the House floor. Instances of far more severe violence among Members of Congress were common in the 18th and 19th centuries.
::: "For example, in 1789, two Members brawled on the House floor using a cane and fire tong. In 1793, a House Member responded to a lingering dispute with a former Member by challenging him to a duel outside of the Capitol and killing him. In 1832, Rep. Sam Houston was formally reprimanded by the House for attacking Rep. William Stanbery with his cane. Stanbery's response was to shoot at Houston, but his pistol misfired. A duel between two freshmen Congressmen in 1838 ended in the death of one.
::: "In 1838, Rep. Abram Maury and Rep. William Campbell came to blows behind the Speaker's chair on the House floor. Campbell beat Maury bloody. In separate incidents in 1840, Rep. Jesse Bynum attacked Rep. Rice Garland with a cane, while Representatives Kenneth Rayner and William Montgomery broke canes over each other's heads. In the 1850's, a House Member (Rep. Preston Brooks) strode onto the Senate floor and beat a Senator (Sen. Charles Sumner) senseless with his cane. The Senator lived, but was not able to return to office for three years."
http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly39...
Rep. Joe Wilson was rude and stupid (and a liar), but the President isn't King.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 1
binky (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2009 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good points, binky and fishpol -- I even remember the Sumner story now that you mention it. Sometimes it feels like we're headed for that kind of behavior again ...
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 1
Kratatoa (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2009 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Health care talks focus on illegal immigrants
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/arti...
By ERICA WERNER (AP) – 59 minutes ago
WASHINGTON — Senators closing in on a comprehensive health care bill have whittled away all but the most contentious issues and one of those loomed large Friday: coverage for illegal immigrants.
Negotiators on the Senate Finance Committee thought they'd already resolved the question. That was before Republican Rep. Joe Wilson's shout of "You lie!" as President Barack Obama said in a speech Wednesday that illegal immigrants wouldn't be covered under his health plan.
That led senators to revisit the issue to make sure they have provisions in place to enforce prohibitions against illegal residents getting federally subsidized coverage...
KEEP READING and you will see that they have NOT assured that the bill won't allow coverage of illegal aliens.
WHO IS THE LIAR???
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 1 of 1
maximum (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2009 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
MAXIMUM - please travel outside of the US some day - perhaps Scotland or Australia - and ask anyone on the street, how they like their healthcare.
Live a little MAXIMUM
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 1
topcat (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2009 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
MAXIMUM - in 2002, Joe Wilson was a signature of a bill that gave money to hospitals that provided health care for ILLEGALS. It comes up for a vote again this year.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 1
topcat (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2009 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
maximum, the bill also does not assure that little green men from Mars don't get coverage either.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 1
SezMe (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2009 at 8:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is the answer:
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST!
Let he who can afford medicine and doctors be cured.
Others who can't take pain, sign up for obama's red and blue bills and die quietly.
THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO THIN OUT THE HERD, PEOPLE! GET IT?
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 1 of 1
fnainsb (anonymous profile)
September 12, 2009 at 1:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment