I really don't know where to start with this one. I sort of touched on this subjects in some previous posts about health care and the angry, derogatory, fact-less, conservative protesting. There are two articles on NPR that I read this evening before I went to bed that made me sit up and got my blood boiling...
One of them was about how the Obama Administration wants to
take the "Public-Option" off the table, or in their words, they will be open to compromise.
And the second article was basically some analysis of
the current political situation for the Obama Administration and why they have had so much traction in gaining public support for their initiatives
Now first of all, I have no problem with a compromise. Compromise is healthy and should be expected, especially with the American political context. And the compromise actually may have some kick to it: Consumer-owned cooperatives as health insurers. Non-profit health care, even if it is private sector, is better than the for-profit arena. Will it lower costs? Will it get more people insured? Will it facilitate the ultimate goal of having a healthier, more efficient society? Will it produce more moral outcomes? Maybe.
But the part that steams me up is the fact that these outlandish protests seem to be the cause of all of this vision-alteration. Again, I understand that people have legitimate qualms with the current health care reform, I have my own. And in a republican democracy, it is the people who are sovereign and ultimately it is their opinions that determine what policy is acceptable. But there are two problems with that. I feel like most of the debate has been focused on disproving the myths about what the ACTUAL legislation, plan, and current system looked like. Institutions, like NPR for example, ran several stories that corrected common dissatisfactions with "ObamaCare" (as it has been infamously dubbed). So this begs the questions: Has the protest been based on legitimate concern or based on lies or misconceptions?
This whole town hall show-down has been absurd. I just don't even know where to begin. Where I come from, it is polite to ask questions, firmly expect answers, and respectfully disagree. There is no need for name-calling or apocalyptic descriptions of an America that is chained to the dogma of socialistic nihilism that is breaded with carbon-neutral, Fair Trade coffee rinds and fascist flavored handouts. The point is is that most doomsayers have little to no interest in promoting the democratic dialouge; they wish to complain about how fascist Communists have infiltrated America and we should all shiver in our shoes. I feel like the McCarthy metaphor is a tired one, but perhaps this is an appropriate to an extent.
I could go on about poorly informed rants, but I won't. I want to touch on two other things that I had never really thought about until I was really mad about how people were talking, acting, and pretending to be Thomas Paine (I really don't like you, Mr. Beck).
One thing is that I never realized how ridiculous it is to claim that a President is fundamentally challenging the core of "American Values". Now, look, I will be the first to tell you that President Bush was absolutely morally indefensible with the warrentless wiretapping, illegal detentions, torture, and a whole host of other offenses (uhh did I forget WMD's and Iraq?). But the point is is that in the end, claiming to have a handle on the core of American values turns out to mostly be partisan rhetoric. American values are sometimes contradictory and very complex. So while it does feel nice to be on one's high horse when we see a moral transgression, it is important to remember in American politics there are sets of values that can contradict one's beliefs and still maintain their "Americanness". Again, not defending the likes of the Cheney/Rumsfeld. Just something to chew on.
And secondly, I find it very distrubing the large pharmacutical companies were fully supportive of President Obama's health care overhaul. They, in fact, were throwing PR money at this deal! Retail giants like Wal-Mart were also supportive. This makes me very skeptical. When big business is happy, there is reason to doubt to what extent the proposed legislation will actually benefit the broader society and not concentrate wealth in elite hands. I think faithful Obamaites and progressive Democrats should seriously look at who is behind this plan before defending it to the death. While the attacks from the neo-Tea Partyers may be harsh, it might not be such a bad idea to see why major pharmacuticals are behind the plan. What do they stand to gain?
OK, well I tried to keep this short but it wasn't. I apologize.
