Is there a place for observers in the health care debate?

15 Sep 2009

First of all, I should say that I’m a bit ashamed to call it a debate. I’m tired of trying to include in discussion those who don’t wish to be discussed with. And I fully support the notion of decrying them as such. Good job, Congress.

We’re letting the policy discussion on this issue be co-opted. I know I’ve written about this before, but it’s an issue that I continue to see additional sides to, additional angles from which to approach it.

I’ve moved past the “no cooperation” phase, but I’m feeling more and more strongly about the GOP’s essential hypocrisy: claiming to support reform and oppose the slew of Democratic plans for moral reasons, but failing to generate any serious proposal based on those so-called morals that supposedly resonate so strongly with the American public (as if a lawmaker has the right to make blanket statements about what “Americans” want).

And another thing: GOP attempts to portray this as a scientifically hasty and baseless move should be looked in the same light as climate deniers: lying. Because they’re wrong. If they know that (which they must), they’re lying. If they don’t, they should, and that’s a serious enough breach that they deserve to lose their elected positions.

No one is “ramming” a health care bill through Congress. Obama’s disengagement from the legislative process up until his speech was, I believe, responsible for how slowly the whole thing moved. And in practical terms, we’ve been “studying” this phenomenon for half a century. I don’t think Obama’s going to get his wish of being the last president to take up health care (although I fully intend that this should be the last time such a major overhaul is required), but he’s right that this is not a new problem.

Joe Wilson, you’ve now been formally reprimanded. Chuck Grassley, you voted for the same thing you’re now calling “death panels”. Michelle Bachmann, you expect us to take you seriously when you say stuff like this? To you, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and every other fear-mongering racist xenophobe out there: sit down.

Evan Handler is totally right. This thing’s going to happen sooner or later. To the Democrats: how much more time will you waste? Let’s get something done, and, come 2010, let’s not be afraid to remind people who it was who did it. GOP, either become advocates of progress, or stop labeling yourself as such. Really, I have no problem with supporting a status quo in a vacuum. It’s not like everything always has to change. But saying that you support change while stubbornly working against it is dishonest. You might gain some seats in 2010 for it, but does that matter? Obama’s already been quoted as saying that he wouldn’t mind being a one-term president if that’s what it takes to get meaningful health care reform. Democrats, this puts the ball in your court. If you don’t sell the package well enough, then the GOP can ride in on a white horse in 2010 and 2012 and repeal whatever does pass.

It’s up to us now to prevent that from happening. This is something that the vast majority of Americans will benefit from. Lawmakers, don’t let your opponents shout you down about that. They’re loud, but wrong.

And as for we the people? The pressure can’t let up. Every person in this country with misinformed opinions, who gets their analysis from rich white people and has never bothered looking around at the rest of society, or who stops short of condemning people like Glenn Beck for what they are is going to cost us down the road. Economically, as we shoulder the bill for emergency room care for the illegal immigrants those people want excluded (out of some pathetic sense of patriotism even when it’s to your direct financial advantage not to exclude those people). Diplomatically, as we lose even more credit in the eyes of the world.

And ultimately, morally. I’m not threatening my opponents with some kind of judgment in the world to come. But if we fail to do this, we, as a society, slip further away from our already tenuous grasp on the claim of high moral standards. That alone is enough to make this fight worth it to me.

So, a summary of the argument. Progressives: Health care reform is a moral imperative. GOP: But it’s too expensive.

Seriously, guys? Get your priorities straight.

“In a functioning civil society, people take care of each other.” Elizabeth Smith, the 27-year old Kansas waitress who was laughed at by her Representative (Lynn Jenkins) and told to “go be a grown-up” when she told Jenkins that she’d lost her insurance and her son hadn’t seen a doctor in almost two years (receiving only ER care) because she couldn’t pay for insurance or check-ups, said it best. Would any GOP lawmaker dare disagree with that statement directly?

And if they would, what the hell are they doing in the federal government?