Unless you've been living a very secluded life, you are probably aware that last week marked the passage of a health care reform bill. I'm not jumping up and down with joy about it, but I guess it's a step forward, since, despite the hyperbole-filled claims of some, we will never see truly universal health care in this country. It's just not going to happen. I seriously doubt we'll even ever see a public option.
As you might imagine, I wrote about this bill a lot last week. And since I write for some sites that don't agree with me politically, some of these posts are conspicuously missing my actual opinion, and instead just reporting on the facts of the bill (you know, what's actually in there, and citing analysis from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office):
Your Options Under the Health Care Reform Bill: This one is slightly slanted, since I wanted to emphasize that this is not, in fact, government controlled health care. However, most of the information is fact-based, laying out exactly what your options will be under the new program.
You just have to say that it connects back to some act of patriotism. And you have to say it angry. With words like "revolution." Even if there really aren't a whole lot of parallels.
It's not just conservatives (although they are exceptionally good at rallying the troops). Propaganda is a time-honored tradition in politics, no matter which side is doing it. (Of course, it's not propaganda when it's your side -- it's "facts.")
This means that no matter which politician or pundit you are listening to, critical thinking is required. And that's the rub. The truth is almost always somewhere in the middle, but nearly everyone these days is giving into hysteria and listening to the extremes. However, we might all be better off if we stopped listening to the Glenn Becks and Rachel Maddows of the world, and started looking at the actual issues, rather than relying on what someone else tells us is going on.
We finally have a healthcare reform bill. It's passed the House, and now there needs to be reconciliation with the Senate. No, I'm not thrilled about it. And no, it's not really "Obamacare". I actually liked liked Obamacare. Real Obamacare included more affordable healthcare options for Americans by including a public option. But, as we've been seeing since Obama took office, the "left" hasn't really been getting a whole lot of what it wants. Instead, Obama has been paring back his expectations and desires and doing this thing called compromise, which is how a representative government system based on a plurality of population is supposed to work. It's kind of a rough go, since every time Obama instructs Dems to throw the GOP a bone (from reducing the spending in the economic stimulus bill by reducing job creation measures to getting rid of a rather helpful public option after the outcry against providing more affordable options for healthcare), the GOP refuses to compromise on its end.
In the end, though, there's not a lot a president can do when everyone is clambering for more of the healthcare they claim they don't want. And, really, that's what we're getting with this bill. It's what we demanded: A continuation of the same healthcare system that rewards insurance companies for their socialized capitalism model. Yes, you're already paying for someone else's back problem and the habits that lead to obesity. Why do you think your "group" premium goes up every year? Because someone in the group, or at your work, has poor health. Plus, this bill keeps us in the same system of the insurance company telling you where you can get treatment, and who can treat you. See, with a public option, you would have been able to go anywhere you wanted. With the current system, you have less freedom because you have to go where the insurance company tells you to. But I guess as long as it's a corporation telling you what to do, and making a profit, that's true freedom. We the people ranted and raved demanded that we keep the same old insurance system in which we pay double what every other developed country does per-person, for healthcare that is 37th in the world.
The main difference is that now the health insurance companies can't dump you if you get sick, and eventually won't be able to deny you coverage for a pre-existing condition. Of course, now that there are these tenuous consumer protections, Obama is a "dictator" and "tyrant." Yeah. He's a real jerk. He tried to get us more options and more coverage. But then we screamed and yelled about how we wanted to keep the same system. So we have it. But with a little more protection. He listened to us and gave us what we asked for. The insurance companies will have to honor the agreement they make, namely paying for our care when we get sick if we've been paying the premiums. And, on top of that, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says that this current plan will actually reduce the deficit over time.
No, I'm not thrilled about this bill. It has almost nothing that a progressive like me wants to see. It keeps health insurance tied to jobs (but with a tax break for small businesses), it keeps insurance companies in the same position of power they've been in for decades, and it will raise the Medicare tax for couples making more than $250,000 a year. Plus, Medicare spending will be cut.
This is a liberalhealthcare reform bill? Sure, there is a higher Medicare tax on what many consider "the wealthy," and the requirement that insurance companies honor their agreements to pay for your care if you get sick. Oh, and funding for community clinics. (For 10 immediate benefits of the healthcare reform bill, check out Crooks and Liars.) Plenty of things in this bill -- such keeping big business largely in charge, offering a tax cut to small business, and cutting a bloated government program while lowering the deficit over time -- sound conservative.
But then, what do I know? I'm what's wrong with this country: A bat-sh@#$ crazy socialist who really would have liked a public option, since there's no chance this country will see a single-payer system.
(Thanks to Oliver Willis for his post bringing this video to my attention. Awesome.)
Like Glenn Beck, I'm LDS. Unlike Glenn Beck, I'm a progressive. However, I would never say that conservatism is what's wrong with America, since I believe that we all have something to contribute. And even though I don't always agree with the methods conservatives might employ, and I don't always agree with their positions, I think it's a bit much to say that someone is destroying America just because they don't agree with me. The fact that we don't all always agree (it's not like the Founding Fathers always agreed on everything), and that we can express our views, is part of what makes America great.
Glenn Beck has the right to say that progressives are what's wrong with America. I don't dispute that right. But it would nice if, instead of just spewing fear-mongering rhetoric (some of it not even based on fact), he actually tried reasoned discussions about issues, and encouraged thoughtful consideration of different viewpoints and compromise. But that would, unfortunately, make for boring media. And boring media means a smaller audience and less money in Glenn Beck's pocket.
What's really wrong with America right now is that none of us -- no matter political persuasion -- want to involve ourselves with critical thinking, civil discourse and contemplation of issues that require more than sound bites to understand.
Today, an article I wrote a few days ago for MainStreet.com, about 15 values in higher education, appeared on Yahoo. And, since I said something about a cultural group, I was taken to the woodshed. A couple folks pointed out that JMU is in Harrisonburg (I'm embarrassed to say that I sloppily forgot the "on" in my original article). Also, some tried to say that I had tuition numbers wrong. So I spent a lot of time posting links to the tuition information offered by the schools, and pointing out that the tuition numbers I quoted didn't include fees, books, living expenses and other costs. But what most people had a problem with is my apparent bigotry against Mormons when I began my description of BYU thus:
If you don't mind living in the heart of Mormon country, BYU can be a good choice, especially in terms of private school value.
Since I am, in fact, LDS, I didn't think about how culturally/religiously insensitive I was being to imply that someone might have trouble adjusting to life in a Mormon enclave if they aren't LDS. When I moved from southeast Idaho (with a relatively high LDS population) to Cedar City as a college freshman I had trouble adjusting to the Mormon culture present in Southern Utah -- and SUU isn't 98.5% LDS like BYU is. I've been LDS my entire life. Brainwashed from birth and everything. I'm still very active in the church, teaching Sunday School for the teenagers (although I'm not sure if that will continue now that my bigotry is exposed). But it required adjustment to move to Utah and live in the unique culture that is here. My husband, who has been LDS since he was something like two, experienced an even bigger culture shock when he moved from New York to Utah.
So, I can imagine that it must be an even bigger shock for non-LDS folks to move to Utah and go to BYU. I was recruited by Pacific Lutheran University. It is a fine school, but a period of cultural and religious adjustment would have been required had I chosen to go. I don't think it's bigotry to say that, as a Mormon, I would have had to get used to going to school with a mostly Lutheran student body. Any time you go anywhere that you are a cultural minority, you can expect to experience a degree of discomfort until you learn the ropes. But, frankly, I think the particularly insular nature of Utah County (88% LDS in 2003, according to the Deseret News, and probably still at least 75% LDS) would provide a rather large culture shock for anyone who hadn't lived in Utah before. Mormon culture is different. And Utah Mormon culture can, in my opinion, be even more different.
It's been a long time since anyone in Congress has come up with something I can agree with. Ann Kilpatrick (D-Ariz.) is proposing the Taking Responsibility for Congressional Pay Act, which, if in the unlikely event that it is passed, would result in the first Congressional pay cut since 1933. The Huffington Post reports on current salaries enjoyed by members of Congress:
Members of Congress earn a yearly salary $174,000, in either the House or Senate, with higher salaries for leadership positions. A cost-of-living increase is built into salaries. The median income in the United States is $52,175, according to the 2000 U.S. Census.
Economic Crisis Blog offers this illuminating visual look at how out of touch Congress has become with the financial realities of most Americans:
A few years ago, Congress voted to give itself automatic pay raises. They did this, of course, because they didn't want to have to vote to give themselves pay increases, subjecting themselves to scrutiny. Members of Congress did agree to freeze their pay for 2010, but it's not like they're facing the same problems most Americans are. I think we should vote anyone out of office who doesn't vote for a Congressional pay cut. Seriously. Pay attention to this one, and contact your representatives.
I think it's time for a pay cut for Congress. The body has been wasting everyone's time and money on partisan bickering, largely useless legislation and pork spending that doesn't do much of anything for anyone. Not to mention the mess that health care "reform" has become. It looks nothing like anything anyone wants -- except maybe the health insurance industry.
In fact, since Congress is kowtowing so much to special interests, maybe its time that forgo paying Congresspeople with taxpayer dollars altogether. It's not like their doing anything for us.
Jon Stewart nails it again. We've reached a point where party politics, and making sure "the other guys" lose, is more important than actually doing the people's business.
The same people who were just fine with expanding government debt (fun trivia: Reagan was the guy who politically popularized the idea of an acceptable deficit as an engine of economic growth) when they were in charge are now screaming about how important it is to balance the budget.
Of course, the same people who are in charge now and screaming about partisan obstruction will be using similar tactics when they are the minority.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=2b6d2713-ccf2-45fb-9be7-b0e644747f7f)