Breaking News: Famously loose-lipped presidential heckler Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina (catch him in the above clip) now says his outburst ("You lie!") was "inappropriate and regrettable." He did not say he regretted it or found it inappropriate, but he implied that somebody else may have, which is why the party leadership told him to apologize. Surely his lapse was also, you know, a youthful indiscretion. After all, we must proceed under the assumption that people cannot be held responsible for the things they say and do. They just happen. Like when babies go potty in their diapers. Or like meteor showers. Wilson is flat-out wrong, too, but he maintains that he has a right to "disagree" that the bill says what it says, because he would prefer to pretend it says something other than what it does, in fact, say:
H.R. 3200: Sec. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
(tip: Ms. Feeney)
Apart from being #37 and having the most spend per person on healthcare, aren't these right wing idiots emabrrased into lucidity by the free medical services given out by Remote Area Medical (http://www.ramusa.org/) recently in LA.
Look at the stats on the first page - well over 6000 patients seen - many lining up for days.
This is something you see in third world countries - isn't this a wake-up call that something isn't quite right?
BTW: I am not from the US so I am looking at all of this in a stunned fashion. I don't believe any nation can call itself 'great' until it cares for ALL of its people.
Yeah but leaving illegals to be handled in the same manor as they currently are (ERs) has bankrupted the hospitals in LA. They should have access to the universal health care by the same argument that everyone else does. We pay for it anyway might as well drop the expense by giving them access to preventative care. It'll end up being prove you lived in the country for a year or some such (utility bills), after all the grandstanding and liberal name calling is done.
But that's beside the point. Name calling does nothing to advance discussion on the most important (
JE: Agreed: Forcing people to go to emergency rooms in order to get admitted for care, as under the current "system," is wrong, dumb, incredibly expensive and one of the reasons we need reform. As Matthew Yglesias wrote in a very funny-because-it's-true piece today, it is quite true that the bill will not stop illegal aliens from spending their own money on their health:
http://bit.ly/2Rw8Vt
We're also not even in the Top 25 in education (though my source may be out of date). But I guess we get what we deserve considering Rep. Joe Wilson came out of our education system...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571445/World-rankings-for-reading-maths-and-science.html
Having them spend their own money on their health is their own business and good for the country. But having them receive free treatment when they aren't even supposed to be in the country is quite ludicrous.
JE: Fortunately, no proposed legislation is offering to give anyone free treatment. Under the current system, funding treatment for the uninsured is a big part of what's driven costs so ridiculously high.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) says this about H.R. 3200, the Obamacare bill approved just before the recess by the House Energy and Commerce Committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA:
"Under H.R. 3200, a 'Health Insurance Exchange' would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange."
CRS also notes that the bill has no provision for requiring those seeking coverage or services to provided proof of citizenship.
Interesting...
JE: See comment above. Then re-read what the CRS says. It's true, nothing prevents immigrants, legal or illegal, from PURCHASING insurance, just as they purchase other goods and services in the U.S. with their own money. (As noted earlier, illegal immigrants can buy ibuprofen for their aches and pains in this country, too.) The problem with the system right now is that we're subsidizing millions of UNinsured, resulting in grotesquely inflated healthcare costs for all. The "Health Insurance Exchange" program has nothing to do with subsidizing anyone's coverage. It simply allows you to switch your coverage from one insurer to another without being penalized or left un-covered because of pre-existing conditions: http://bit.ly/2xuwgu
As far as the incident involving Rep. Wilson is concerned, both the main post here and the comments miss the point.
Wilson's outburst wasn't about health care reform. It was about hostility, a particular kind of hostility traditional and still widespread in the American South. Among the South Carolina voters Rep. Wilson relies on to get reelected -- these would be the voters who turn out in every election, even low-turnout midterms and party primaries -- race matters, and an African-American as President is an affront. Spanish-speaking, dark-skinned immigrants present in large numbers in their communities are a even bigger affront. Liberals, generally defined as people from outside the South who do not overtly embrace the cultural atttitudes of the South, are a final, albeit somewhat generic affront.
Rep. Wilson will pay no price in his district for showing disrespect to the President of the United States, regardless of whether he was right or wrong about the status of illegal aliens in health care reform (as many people far more familiar with the relevant legislation than Rep. Wilson is have noted, he was wrong). He expressed hostility to a prominent black man contradicting firmly held beliefs about illegal aliens in the cause of a legislative cause promoted by liberals -- hostility that is shared among most of the people who vote in every election in his district.
Wilson's attitudes are not intrinsically, or at least not traditionally, Republican attitudes. Thirty-odd years ago, almost everyone in his region of the country who felt as he does was a Democrat; for more than a century, no part of the United States practiced one-party politics founded on prowess in winning low-turnout elections with more dedication than the states of the old Confederacy, and they were Democratic politics.
The Republican Party began absorbing Southern white Democrats in large numbers in the 1970s, but rather than making Republicans out of most of these people the GOP has adopted the atttitudes, even the passions of white Democrats of the old South. Some Republicans recognize the political dead end this leads to: a party dominant in one area of the country and for that reason condemned to permanent minority status everywhere else. George Bush and Karl Rove recognized it; though he was not prepared to alienate his strongest supporters by fighting for immigration reform Bush did propose it, and so did John McCain. Slavishly devoted though they were otherwise to a President widely regarded now as having been dismally unsuccessful, southern white Democrats-turned-Republicans weren't having any of Bush's talk of treating immigrants without papers as anything other than criminals.
They still aren't. They want illegal immigrants from Mexico gone, now; they don't want to hear temporizing words about not extending health benefits to them, least of all from a black liberal from Chicago. In a different era, other Republicans would object to the attitudes expressed by Rep. Wilson, not just to his factual error or his lack of manners. In this day, though, the Republican Party is on the way to turning into the old Southern Democratic Party. With just two words, Joe Wilson has turned himself from a pissant back bench Congressman into a leading party GOP spokesman. It's a disheartening thing to see.
JE: Yes, Nixon's infamous "Southern Strategy" worked. And the Civil War is by no means over in this country, as far as parts of the South are concerned. But I trace the devaluation of factual evidence, reasoning and constructive courtesy in public discourse directly to the popularity of right-wing talk radio and, in particular, Australian tabloid tycoon Rupert Murdoch's media properties. One look at the New York Post or FOX News and you can plainly see how the standards of acceptable discussion have been systematically lowered. Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh has become the de facto voice of the GOP! Wilson is being lionized by these people for yelling at the president during a speech to congress! But, then, this is the party whose previous Vice President, Dick Cheney, in his role as President Pro Tem of the Senate, told Sen. Patrick Leahy "Fuck yourself" on the floor of the Senate itself (http://bit.ly/u2NhA). So, what can you expect from them when childish tantrums are so encouraged? There's no excuse -- and they aren't interested in making any. Disheartening indeed.
I read a book called "Antiquity" recently, by Norman F. Cantor. In his discussion on Rome, he spends a few pages on Cicero, who is considered the prototype for every lawyer ever since.
Cicero had two great ideas about the law, which at various times have been seen as contradictory. The first was that everyone is equal before the law - the rich man cannot use his wealth to his advantage (and a poor man's disadvantage) in the courts. The other was that the courts cannot use their power to change or eliminate the social inequalities that exist. This second idea has been the foundation of several political groups through British history, and was transplanted across the Atlantic and became the touchstone for the Republican party.
You can see this playing out now, in that the Republicans are against any government interference in anything that might be considered using the power of the law to give something to someone that they haven't "earned" - such as health care, or education, or most important of all, money.
I can see some form of logic in Cicero's two ideas - they are complementary in one sense. The courts do provide protection of the poor from the whims of the rich (or at least are intended to); but at the same time, the courts provide protection for the rich against the power of the poor - after all, there are a lot more poor than rich, and they could use the power of numbers to force a law that would remove wealth from the rich and give it freely to the poor.
But, and here's the critical aspect I think most Republicans who are against health care miss, they don't realize that we have a different world-view than Cicero did 2000 years ago. Today, we're sophisticated enough to realize that a good public education system is an investment in having a base of well-educated workers; that have a good public health care system is an investment in having a healthy populace. There are benefits to both public education and public health for the monied class, but short-sightedly they don't realize it.
JE: This is an interesting philosophical topic. I know it really upsets some people to think that others may be getting something they don't deserve, or haven't earned. In this case, we're talking about health insurance. I haven't yet heard Republicans make the following arguments, but maybe they have: 1) those without coverage should be denied treatment; 2) illegal immigrants should not be allowed to use their own money to buy coverage. The goal of universal coverage is to reduce costs for everyone by allowing insurance to pool risk the way it is supposed to. The current system, with no mechanism to cover the uninsured (particularly those with pre-existing conditions or employers who don't offer insurance), makes premiums and treatment extremely expensive for everybody, in part because everybody is paying for treatment for the uninsured who can't pay the artificially inflated costs of care in this country. So, I don't understand the objections to universal coverage, pooling risk and lowering costs for everybody. As you say, what are the short- and long-term consequences for society at large?
JE: This is an interesting philosophical topic. I know it really upsets some people to think that others may be getting something they don't deserve, or haven't earned. In this case, we're talking about health insurance...I don't understand the objections to universal coverage, pooling risk and lowering costs for everybody. As you say, what are the short- and long-term consequences for society at large?
Yeah, I don't understand it either. I'm a Canadian, born in the 60s. I've got a stake in universal health care; in fact I've never known a time when I didn't have universal health care. While it has its share of problems, it came in really handy several years ago when I blew out my knee playing touch football...
In my humble opinion, it comes down to the question of "what is a society?" My feeling is that people who hold to this Republican ideal don't believe in society as a collection of people with shared values, goals and aspirations. Or if they do, they see their country as comprising several different societies at the same time - "us" and (one or more of) "them". In a way, it's very like the old British class-driven society, with a not-very-subtle class war approach. And so they desperately fight rear-guard actions against any social program.
Subversively, I suppose we could consider this the tempering flame that ensures only social programs that are universal in support, well conceived, yada yada yada, survive and actually get implemented - like the wolf which kills the weak and thus strengthens the overall prey species.
I could contrast that philosophy with the gun registry we had for a while in Canada. There was considerable opposition, particularly in the west and rural communities. It had been presented as a means of curbing gun crime, and advanced mostly because of a spate of murders in Toronto and Vancouver (Toronto, a city of 4 million, had something like 15 murders in 6 months). But, critics correctly pointed out that a farmer who registered his rifle in rural Saskatchewan wasn't going to have any impact on gun violence in Toronto - guns used in crimes in T.O. are illegally brought into Canada. It was forecast to cost $50 million of our Canadian monopoly money, and before it was killed the costs had ballooned to over $1 billion.
There are times when I wonder if, had we not a stronger aversion to slapping social programs together willy-nilly, we wouldn't end up with better programs. But perhaps I'm too idealistic, and ascribing too much social virtue to the Joe Wilsons of the world...
The math here is actually simple enough that anyone other than a hardcore Obama supporter could figure it out. I'll list the steps:
1. Illegal immigrants currently use the American health care system, often utilizing Medicare funds.
2. Obama's health care plan, which vastly increases the government's role in health care, will doubtlessly end up providing funds that get used by illegal immigrants no matter what preventative measures are put in place (ie Republican-sponsored amendments dictating that patients prove their citizenship)
3. Obama is either aware of this or stupid, and he's not stupid.
4. Thus, when Obama says that his health care plan will not go towards medical care for illegal immigrants, he is lying.
See how easy that is! For more evidence, consider that even if there were some magical way to keep illegal immigrants from utilizing government health care funds, their children born on U.S. soil are automatically citizens, and thusly will be allowed to take their share of the resources. But even more damning is Obama's long standing support of mass legalization, which would instantly make millions of illegal immigrants into either citizens or legal residents. Just FYI, there is NOT an unlimited supply of hospitals, doctors, nurses, and medical equipment in this country. So when Obama declares that his health care plan will save money, this is also a lie, because he's not stupid enough to believe that putting tens of millions of new people into the system is going to result in a net cut in spending.
JE: I already addressed this above. I don't think you understand the idea of insurance -- of large groups paying premiums and thereby spreading the risk so that people who pay into the pool are covered when they need it. Right now the UNinsured, most of them illegal aliens, are driving up costs for everybody. How would you put a stop to that? What are the proposals from those who want to stop illegal aliens from getting (or even paying for) healthcare? Mandating universal insurance coverage the way we have mandated liability coverage for drivers for many years does not increase expenses or involve massive government intervention. Your premises are false. Again: Two thirds of illlegal aliens pay taxes and pay into Medicare and Social Security, even though the 1996 welfare reform bill prevents them from receiving benefits: http://reason.org/news/show/122411.html . If you want to do something about getting rid of illegal aliens (even though the companies, large and small, who lure illegals to the country by hiring them say they couldn't compete in the marketplace without their cheap labor, and some economists say our economy depends upon them to keep consumer prices down), then that's another issue. If you want to argue that the uninsured -- whether citizens or non-citizens -- should be denied treatment, then that's another issue. If you think that Medicare should be discontinued, that's another issue. If you think that a marketplace that allows the selling of private insurance and the pooling of risk is objectionable, then that's another issue. (I'm not arguing for or against any of these propositions.) But none of those adress the core issues behind healthcare reform today. Compulsory universal healthcare coverage -- like liability coverage for drivers -- doesn't give anybody a free ride, since the problem is with those who seek care and DON'T have insurance coverage. Right now. Under the current system. Is that OK with you? If so, say so. Also, you're assuming the existence of a government-run program, which is by no means a certainty -- or even an option -- and Obama himself just said he's not committed to having one, though many believe a Medicare-like "fallback" public option is a good idea for those who want it, or who can't get insurance any other way. It's cheaper than NOT insuring people.
For the life of me I still can't see how forcing everyone to have insurance will drive down costs. While I can appreciate your comparison to liability insurance, the difference is that not everyone chooses to drive. I know that someone simply living can drain resources from those who pay into the system, but short of encouraging everyone who doesn't buy health insurance to commit suicide, I can't think of a solution to that.
I think most on the American left would just as soon see a truly socialist health care system like the ones in Canada and Britain. There's merit in the argument, but since people in this country largely balk at a government takeover of health care, the rhetoric and laws proposed are significantly watered down in order to make them consumable. This is where the debate gets to me: many liberals want something, but other than just flatly state it or go for it, they shroud their true beliefs with somewhat more centrist proposals with the intention to push further left later on. It's smart politics, but one I have little taste for.
Our concerns might not be shared, but even more than cost, I worry about what's going to happen to our medical system when people who would normally go to the doctor only if necessary decide to start heading to the hospital all the time under the illusion that it's "free" or "cheap." Call me a cynic, but I don't see any very desireable fix for our health care system. The problems caused by both the left and the right's view are myriad and severe. What I do know is that I personally am content with my health care right now, and that no one, and I mean no one, really knows what is going to happen, good or bad, should the system undergo a drastic change.
JE: The legislation is being introduced openly (and it's all available on the Internet) -- not snuck through Congress in the middle of the night, so there are plenty of opportunities to check the details as it takes shape. Requiring liability insurance for drivers wasn't a "drastic change" -- though, as you say, insurance would be cheaper if more people were insured. The more premiums that come in, the more money the insurers have to invest and pay expenses. But insurance doesn't pay 100 percent of the cost of every procedure or prescription. There are still co-pays, deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums that insured individuals have to pay themselves. No insurance is "free"; even Medicare only covers certain percentages of costs and the individual is liable for the rest. But it's enough to keep people from being completely wiped out by a single accident or illness. Here are some excerpts from the intro to a basic, non-ideological primer on health insurance:
Full article here: http://health.howstuffworks.com/health-insurance.htm
I just feel the need to point out that not all residents of South Carolina are idiots. True, there are a fair share of them here, but the Southeast isn't the only part of the country that has experienced the racism that we are seeing in this debate. The entire country's racist roots are showing right now. I'm not defending Wilson at all, but as a white man in South Carolina, I can tell you with no uncertainty that he is a racist, has always been a racist (dig more into his history, or the fact that, AFTER Strom Thurmond's daughter was acknowledged and admitted to the family, he still called it a "smear" on the man's image.)
You guys point out the SE, that's true, and you're not wrong to do so, but you know what's in Pennsylvania between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh? A bunch of rednecks.
/ rant.
JE: I live in Seattle, but the same goes for large swaths of eastern Washington, Oregon and Idaho. The friends I have from South Carolina are mortified and embarrassed -- as well they should be -- that this clown represents part of their state. He's elected by the people of the state's 2nd congressional district, which includes the state capital (over which he likes to see the Confederate Battle Flag fly) and Hilton Head Island. If the people of that district feel suitably humiliated, they won't re-elect him in 2010.
Jim, here are some recent developments that touch on some of the points in this post.
"Obama will oppose letting illegal immigrants buy insurance through new purchasing exchanges the government will set up — even from private companies operating within the exchanges."
"Illegal immigrants would not be allowed to access the exchange that is set up," Gibbs said. Verification requirements are "something we'd work out with Congress," he said.
Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said that after Obama's speech the group revisited its illegal immigrant provisions to make sure legislative language would enforce requirements for people to have valid Social Security numbers before getting government-subsidized coverage.
http://tinyurl.com/r9hpgp
I wish people would stop quoting that WHO ranking as if it were an objective measure of health care performance. It's riddled with uncertainties and subjective weighting that make government run health care inherently rank higher.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9236
So, using this study as a reason for government run health care is like a self fulfilling prophecy.