Saturday, August 08, 2009

Health care debate - Angry mobs

The Examiner:
We are witnessing something terribly ugly in America this summer. Obama is leading a campaign to shift our peaceful democratic process away from civil discussions of programs and candidates to using the power of the state to bully those who oppose the majority party's policy proposals. The threat may be as subtle as the fear of being reported by a neighborhood informant to the White House, or as overt as stick-wielding union toughs who might not approve of the way you ask your congressman a question.

During his campaign last year, the president famously told his supporters to "get in the faces" of those who disagreed with his vision for America. One of his Chicago mentors recalled in a 2007 New Republic profile that Obama, as a community organizer, was "the best student he ever had, a natural, the undisputed master of agitation" to gain political power. Sadly, now that he has it, he is turning it against those who oppose him.
On the contrary when I saw this headline at Real Clear Politics, it referred to those health care reform opponents as "hooligans". This op/ed is from the NY Times:
One of the most frustrating aspects of the health care debate is that the people who most want reform are the most apathetic about it.

According to a CNN/Opinion Research poll released on Wednesday, nearly 8 in 10 Democrats said that they favor “Barack Obama’s plan to reform health care,” compared with just 19 percent of Republicans.

Yet, according to a Gallup poll released last week, only 47 percent of Democrats said that they had a good understanding of the issues involved in the current health care debate. Fifty-eight percent of the Republicans polled said that they understood.

Furthermore, a Pew Research Center poll released on Thursday found that Democrats were the least likely to say that they were following the debate over health care reform “very closely.” Only 42 percent of Democrats said that they were, compared with 45 percent of the independents and 56 percent of the Republicans polled.

And while Democrats are sitting it out, Republicans are storming in.
I can sense that the mood right now is passionate. On both sides of this issue there are those who wants health reform and those who may oppose it for various reasons. Personally I'm concerned about the idea that government wants to take control of the health care system.

There can be some agreement that there must be reform. The main question we have to ask is, what is the best way to reform the current system. Must we go to a single-payer system or should we improve upon the system we already have?

Well here are a couple of other links, however, these are obviously biased against the Obama health care plan:

Health Care Industry Shouldn't Be Taken Without Due Process And Compensation - IBD

This op/ed makes the claim that any plan for the government to take control of the health care system is not constitution especially if taken without due process and compensation.

Meet the Mob - The Dana Show

These pics are hilarious especially with the captions that seeks to illustrate the absurdities of accusing those citizens who oppose any health care plan from Washington of being members of an angry mob.

1 comment:

Rob_N said...

Levois, I saw those still pictures from "the Dana Show" blog ("still" being the operative word, they're not videos). Compare those to videos of the screaming-and-pounding conservatives and it's night and day; let alone all the photos of conservatives holding up SS and swastika laden posters comparing their fellow Americans to Nazis simply because some (a majority) of Americans want to fix what just about everyone agrees is a national problem. A few questions for you... - If conservatives attending these town halls are just going as regular citizens in order to exercise their 1st Amendment rights... why are they screaming to such an extent that none of the other citizens in attendance are able to exercise *their* 1st Amendment rights? The Bill of Rights applies to all Americans, not just those who shout the loudest. - If an American citizen can be arrested for disorderly conduct simply for yelling at a cop while in his own living room, why is it that people shouting down and physically assaulting other citizens during public meetings are simply exercising their 1A rights and not committing disorderly conduct (or worse) themselves? - Finally, what "plan" is there in existence in any of the five or so Congressional plans that would allow the government to "take over" health care in this country and control it? Not even Medicare and Medicaid "control" health care. Those existing gov't systems negotiate payment plans with hospitals and doctors that are in business for themselves, not the gov't. For that matter, you ask "Must we go to a single-payer system or should we improve upon the system we already have?" None of the Congressional plans includes single-payer. None. (Again, there is not "one" bill but several proposed bills floating through Congress). Yes, several prominent Democrats (incl. Pres. Obama) has stated clearly that they would prefer to see America use a single-payer system (ie, universal care). Some, incl. Pres. Obama, have even said that there may be ways to eventually evolve into such a system by adapting to others plans in the meantime. There has even been at least one amendment offered on a health care bill in Congress to include single-payer (that was defeated). But not one of the current bills in Congress includes single-payer. Why? Well, Democrats already compromised with Republcans on that point. The President went into this reform discussion saying that single-payer, even though he preferred it, was off the table because he knew the GOP and others wouldn't go for it. So, nobody is talking about single-payer except in their dreams. :) (By the by, nobody except Sarah Palin and a few well-paid conservative lobbyists are talking about Obamacare "death camps" either. The specific Senate-bill amendment they're referring to actually deals with living wills which allow people to tell doctors whether or not they want to be revived in the case of a life-threatening emergency -- a do not rescussitate order. Completely up to that individual though, not the doctor. AND that amendment was sponsored by the very Republican, very conservative Sen. Isaakson of Georgia. ...So it was not even originally part Obama's plan anyway).

Post a Comment

Comments are now moderated because one random commenter chose to get comment happy. What doesn't get published is up to my discretion. Of course moderating policy is subject to change. Thanks!