Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Believe me, I'm not interested in minimizing the pain of a major illness, nor the impunity that the insurance companies seem to adopt in dealing with people suffering from them. Breast cancer is certainly one of the worst. My concern is how we air this in public.

I'm sure that there are many diseases suffered by men and women, blacks and whites, gays and straights that have similar devastating results, yet there seems to always be a need to focus on a single group or a special class. That just makes the message less powerful and potentially off-putting to non-group members. That's stupid in the extreme. The sensible way to address this issue, among many that need similar treatment, is to note the problem in its generic form, cite several disparate examples that highlight why this is a broadly shared problem, then provide a broad, generic solution.

The left has spent so many years catering to small groups with unique agendas, we have lost the ability to speak to the universal whole. While the right assembles armies of like-thinkers, we run around herding cats.

I can see what Marx&Lennon is saying here. But first, to Deb C, it’s not my intention to minimize in any way what happened to your sister-in-law or to women who have suffered from cancer. I’m 40 and therefore at the recommended starting point for diagnostic tests. It’s a real issue to me.

M&L’s point is one that keeps me from fully falling to the left politically. Whereas the right tends to embrace groupthink, the left, in my opinion, panders too much. Both options alienate the middle. I don’t need health care to be a women’s issue for it to matter to me, just as I don’t need to see mothers holding babies in political campaign ads. Thinking about this, I suppose both parties are guilty of relating to the nation as nothing more than a mass of various demographics, but, because the Democratic party is the self-named party of equality, of inclusion, I suppose I expect more from them.

Perhaps, too, taking universal issues and shaping them to matter to one specific subset feels as though it cheapens the significance of the issue.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Believe me, I'm not interested in minimizing the pain of a major illness, nor the impunity that the insurance companies seem to adopt in dealing with people suffering from them. Breast cancer is certainly one of the worst. My concern is how we air this in public.

I'm sure that there are many diseases suffered by men and women, blacks and whites, gays and straights that have similar devastating results, yet there seems to always be a need to focus on a single group or a special class. That just makes the message less powerful and potentially off-putting to non-group members. That's stupid in the extreme. The sensible way to address this issue, among many that need similar treatment, is to note the problem in its generic form, cite several disparate examples that highlight why this is a broadly shared problem, then provide a broad, generic solution.

The left has spent so many years catering to small groups with unique agendas, we have lost the ability to speak to the universal whole. While the right assembles armies of like-thinkers, we run around herding cats.

Like I said - stupid!

I don't see this as an either/or situation, because individual issues make the whole story.

You want to talk about the difference between Repubs and the left? The Repubs will push with all of their might, but way too many on the left will settle for half baked bread. There is a major difference between a person on left and hard left activist. MLK Jr. was a hard left activist who would not compromise.

There are way too many activists on the left who are willing to believe that half measures are better than nothing ; like putting the American citizen's health into the hands of the giant insurance industry that has proven time and time again to hold profit as their highest priority. This makes sense to you? Or who wants an end to war but settles for excuses.

Those who push for real reforms, and not half measures, are deemed "idealists." Well, it was idealists, the "hard" left, who have "pushed" for major changes in our social systems over the years, not people willing to make excuses for corporate owned presidents and willing to accept water downed reforms.

Rosa Parks didn't settle for half baked measures, and that's what made her a hard left activist. She didn't settle for just the ability to ride on the bus and sit in the back, but she demanded to ride the bus and sit anywhere she well pleased.

We need like-thinkers for sure. And in my book, like-thinkers need to be more like tall strong reeds and not settle for bread and circuses. Hard left activists are considered radical but I'm afraid that so many on the left have settled for milk toast.

Originally Posted by BookishXer

[Perhaps, too, taking universal issues and shaping them to matter to one specific subset feels as though it cheapens the significance of the issue.[/FONT]

It was not my intention to make this a woman's issue. It was merely submitted as one example of what is happening on the personal level.

I am a big fan of the power of telling one another's story so they can meld into one pot.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I don't see this as an either/or situation, because individual issues make the whole story.

You want to talk about the difference between Repubs and the left? The Repubs will push with all of their might, but way too many on the left will settle for half baked bread. There is a major difference between a person on left and hard left activist. MLK Jr. was a hard left activist who would not compromise.

There are way too many activists on the left who are willing to believe that half measures are better than nothing ; like putting the American citizen's health into the hands of the giant insurance industry that has proven time and time again to hold profit as their highest priority. This makes sense to you? Or who wants an end to war but settles for excuses.

Those who push for real reforms, and not half measures, are deemed "idealists." Well, it was idealists, the "hard" left, who have "pushed" for major changes in our social systems over the years, not people willing to make excuses for corporate owned presidents and willing to accept water downed reforms.

Rosa Parks didn't settle for half baked measures, and that's what made her a hard left activist. She didn't settle for just the ability to ride on the bus and sit in the back, but she demanded to ride the bus and sit anywhere she well pleased.

We need like-thinkers for sure. And in my book, like-thinkers need to be more like tall strong reeds and not settle for bread and circuses. Hard left activists are considered radical but I'm afraid that so many on the left have settled for milk toast.

Either you missed my point or I did a lousy job making it. It isn't about the validity of the issues. If it was, the Right would be in political purgatory. It's about the way the issues are presented and how they are perceived. The advocates of exclusivity have managed to own the inclusive message - that everyone benefits from their vision .. except for the no-counts, of course.

They do that by addressing their core concepts on the most generic basis possible. They avoid terms that define boundaries. If the issue is healthcare, they discuss access or affordability. They never discuss ailments. People with pancreatic cancer may resent a focus on breast cancer, that implies theirs is a less important illness. Expand that to cancer in general, and the diabetics may feel excluded. But expand it to everyone needing access, and the barriers drop.

Why do you think the Right has been so successful branding the Left with the "special interest" label?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Either you missed my point or I did a lousy job making it. It isn't about the validity of the issues. If it was, the Right would be in political purgatory. It's about the way the issues are presented and how they are perceived. The advocates of exclusivity have managed to own the inclusive message - that everyone benefits from their vision .. except for the no-counts, of course.

They do that by addressing their core concepts on the most generic basis possible. They avoid terms that define boundaries. If the issue is healthcare, they discuss access or affordability. They never discuss ailments. People with pancreatic cancer may resent a focus on breast cancer, that implies theirs is a less important illness. Expand that to cancer in general, and the diabetics may feel excluded. But expand it to everyone needing access, and the barriers drop.

Why do you think the Right has been so successful branding the Left with the "special interest" label?

It appears that you have defined my message as a one issue post. As I explained before, it is, and was not, to focus on "just" women's issues. It was merely one tragic story of the craziness of the health care system in this country. Be it any illness, thousands more could add their personal story to the mix.

We would better serve the common good if we were to un-contaminate the issues by not calling submitting more power to the corporate giants a progressive reform. That's where we on the left defeat ourselves. You won't hear many Republicans relinquish their values. They stick to their issue like glue. They may be monkey poop crazy, but they don't bend on issues.

Yes. I have a friend with Type One diabetes who received a notice of a conference aimed at diabetics. The cost was high enough that anyone attending could afford an insulin pump. Her major problem is that she can't afford an insulin pump and so has to mess around with needles and so on. And - the kicker - she lives in Canada. But her Province doesn't consider insulin pumps a medical necessity as long as there are needles and things.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Yes. I have a friend with Type One diabetes who received a notice of a conference aimed at diabetics. The cost was high enough that anyone attending could afford an insulin pump. Her major problem is that she can't afford an insulin pump and so has to mess around with needles and so on. And - the kicker - she lives in Canada. But her Province doesn't consider insulin pumps a medical necessity as long as there are needles and things.

H-m-m-m-m. Sad. Which Province does she call home? I know that Alberta is pretty stingy, and Ontario is generous. I can't place the rest in any order.

Originally Posted by Deb C

It appears that you have defined my message as a one issue post. As I explained before, it is, and was not, to focus on "just" women's issues. It was merely one tragic story of the craziness of the health care system in this country. Be it any illness, thousands more could add their personal story to the mix...

My comments all related to the original article, which is not at all atypical in its thrust. It seems to be in the liberal psyche to pose issues in that fashion. I still think its counterproductive in the extreme.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m-m. Sad. Which Province does she call home? I know that Alberta is pretty stingy, and Ontario is generous. I can't place the rest in any order.

Somewhere on the Pacific Coast.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Yes. I have a friend with Type One diabetes who received a notice of a conference aimed at diabetics. The cost was high enough that anyone attending could afford an insulin pump. Her major problem is that she can't afford an insulin pump and so has to mess around with needles and so on. And - the kicker - she lives in Canada. But her Province doesn't consider insulin pumps a medical necessity as long as there are needles and things.

Hey, almost way off topic, but does your friend know that "Canadian researchers tested 42 patients with type 1 diabetes and found that almost half had immune system T-cells that overreacted to wheat"? Very recent stuff.

They knew there was a relationship, but they were guessing around 5-10% because they were looking for full blown T1D (complete pancreatic atrophy) and full blown Celiac (complete intestinal atrophy.) By observing the immune cells' interaction with wheat directly, they found a much stronger relationship and then the genes that overlap between the two conditions.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Yes. I have a friend with Type One diabetes who received a notice of a conference aimed at diabetics. The cost was high enough that anyone attending could afford an insulin pump. Her major problem is that she can't afford an insulin pump and so has to mess around with needles and so on. And - the kicker - she lives in Canada. But her Province doesn't consider insulin pumps a medical necessity as long as there are needles and things.

H-m-m-m-m. Sad. Which Province does she call home? I know that Alberta is pretty stingy, and Ontario is generous. I can't place the rest in any order.

Somewhere on the Pacific Coast.

That has to be British Columbia, because there aren't all that many people in Yukon (~35,000), and it doesn't actually touch the Pacific. I'm a bit surprised that BC isn't more generous, but that's left to the Provinces to decide ... up to a point.

“It's very similar to the bill Republicans advocated in '93 [with its]... basic approach, which is a free-market, market-based-system approach.”

That was Rahm Emmanuel, Chief of Staff to U.S. President Barack Obama, speaking to Jim Lehrer on the just-passed Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (PPAHCA) on the “Public” Broadcasting System’s “News Hour,” March 25, 2010

British Columbia sounds about right - and I sent her the quotation on wheat and celiac disease. Thanks!

The activist and author, Chris Hedges, has become one of my favorite truth tellers. He is a straight shooter that has the facts behind his words.

Obama’s Health Care Bill Is Enough to Make You Sick

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...sick_20100712/

Posted on Jul 12, 2010
By Chris Hedges

A close reading of the new health care legislation, which will conveniently take effect in 2014 after the next presidential election, is deeply depressing. The legislation not only mocks the lofty promises made by President Barack Obama, exposing most as lies, but sadly reconfirms that our nation is hostage to unchecked corporate greed and abuse. The simple truth, that single-payer nonprofit health care for all Americans would dramatically reduce costs and save lives, that the for-profit health care system is the problem and must be destroyed, is censored out of the public debate by a media that relies on these corporations as major advertisers and sponsors, as well as a morally bankrupt Democratic Party that is as bought off by corporations as the Republicans.

The 2,000-page piece of legislation, according to figures compiled by Physicians for a National Health Plan (PNHP), will leave at least 23 million people without insurance, a figure that translates into an estimated 23,000 unnecessary deaths a year among people who cannot afford care. It will permit prices to climb so that many of us will soon be paying close to 10 percent of our annual income to buy commercial health insurance, although this coverage will only pay for about 70 percent of our medical expenses. Those who become seriously ill, lose their incomes and cannot pay skyrocketing premiums will be denied coverage. And at least $447 billion in taxpayer subsidies will now be handed to insurance firms. We will be forced by law to buy their defective products. There is no check in the new legislation to halt rising health care costs. The elderly can be charged three times the rates provided to the young. Companies with predominantly female work forces can be charged higher gender-based rates. The dizzying array of technical loopholes in the bill—written in by armies of insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists—means that these companies, which profit off human sickness, suffering and death, can continue their grim game of trading away human life for money.

“They named this legislation the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and as the tradition of this nation goes, any words they put into the name of a piece of legislation means the opposite,” said single-payer activist Dr. Margaret Flowers when I heard her and Helen Redmond dissect the legislation in Chicago at the Socialism 2010 Conference last month. “It neither protects patients nor leads to affordable care.”

Link to the entire article is at the top of this page.

Originally Posted by Deb C

The activist and author, Chris Hedges, has become one of my favorite truth tellers. He is a straight shooter that has the facts behind his words.

He also has a bias visible in the quote you presented, one I happen to agree with but don't agree with his conclusions. His context is revealed by the following:

The simple truth, that single-payer nonprofit health care for all Americans would dramatically reduce costs and save lives, that the for-profit health care system is the problem and must be destroyed, is censored out of the public debate

Oh, please. Right there we have where he's coming from made clear: anything short of a single-payer nonprofit health care system is unacceptable, even in the short term. That's just ridiculous, and totally exposes his political naivety and total inability to grasp how reform works in the U.S.

We don't do radical shit like that in one big jump in this country, never have, never will. We do stuff like this new law as a first step. Then we pass a public option. Then when people discover they like that public option, over time it grows to be the biggest single insurer in the country, and then in effect we have a single-payer system. I'm sorry if the inability to do everything at once doesn't sit well with this fellow, but really, he's just throwing a temper-tantrum because he was given a broken cookie.

I recently re-read Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States and reflected that Zinn displayed a similar attitude. A devotee of the idea of revolution, he lamented about the periodic reforms America makes because they make it harder to totally abolish the capitalist system; they make the system robust and flexible instead of brittle. But they also make things better. Reading between the lines of his account, despite how he tries to slant things, it becomes obvious that (for example) black people were slaves, then were in a kind of serfdom, and now merely suffer from statistically worse economic circumstances; that working people used to work sixteen hour days with no unemployment insurance for miserable pay and in horribly unsafe conditions and were shot when they tried to form unions, and now none of that is true; that women's circumstances have similarly improved over time, and so on. The reforms may work to keep the elite in power, but they also work to help the downtrodden. The lesson I take away from all this is that it doesn't pay to get in a hurry. Evolution works. All too frequently, revolution doesn't. I don't want to end up with Napoleon, let alone Stalin.

Slow and steady wins the race, as the tortoise said to the hare. We've made a start on reforming the health care system, and that's all that could reasonably be expected at this time and a whole lot better than might have happened had this sort of purist's views been acted on by everyone who cared.

Originally Posted by independent

Post office, public schools, we have plenty of models of relatively successful systems that provide a cheap/free basic minimum while allowing competition on the high end to prevent shortages & rationing that would be implied by a completely single-payer system.

I don't know what is worse - that this wasn't even considered during the "reform" process, or that it is the generally right-wing USNews who has to bring it up.

Uhh... Wasn't considered? Pretty sure a lot of initial plans included a public option. Got shot down for being too "socialist."

Infact, the original plans drafted by both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were basically that: open up federal employee health insurance to the public as the "public option." I'm not certain, but I believe that it (or something similar) was included in the House's original bill.

Originally Posted by Silifi

I'm not certain, but I believe that it (or something similar) was included in the House's original bill.

You are correct. It would have passed, too, except for Senate rules which required 60 votes in favor of the bill, giving veto power to the most conservative Democrats and Independents since no Republican would vote yes. A majority of senators would have supported the public option. Alas, a supermajority did not.

You post this...

Originally Posted by Deb C

You won't hear many Republicans relinquish their values. They stick to their issue like glue.

Then, a few hours later, you post this...

Originally Posted by Deb C

“It's very similar to the bill Republicans advocated in '93 [with its]... basic approach, which is a free-market, market-based-system approach.”

That was Rahm Emmanuel, Chief of Staff to U.S. President Barack Obama, speaking to Jim Lehrer on the just-passed Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (PPAHCA) on the “Public” Broadcasting System’s “News Hour,” March 25, 2010

So much for the Republican "glue" theory, eh?

Gosh, there's so much b.s. here I think I'm gonna get sick...

bye.

Originally Posted by Silifi

Uhh... Wasn't considered? Pretty sure a lot of initial plans included a public option. Got shot down for being too "socialist."

Infact, the original plans drafted by both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were basically that: open up federal employee health insurance to the public as the "public option." I'm not certain, but I believe that it (or something similar) was included in the House's original bill.

Wow, I didn't know the costs of public schools were split up evenly among the people who use the service and charged to them in a monthly premium form.

Pundits used the federal employee plan as a talking point, but that was always a non-starter because it is a typical major-label health insurance plan with a generous employer matching scheme.

All of this thinking was done inside of a very, very small box.

Originally Posted by Publius

You post this...

Then, a few hours later, you post this...

So much for the Republican "glue" theory, eh?

Gosh, there's so much b.s. here I think I'm gonna get sick...

bye.

Come on Marc you can do better than that.
In 16-17 years the amount of turnover in Congress is high.
Most of the '93-95 GOPers aren't around anymore.

Anyone seen GOP minority leader Gingrich lately?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

He also has a bias visible in the quote you presented, one I happen to agree with but don't agree with his conclusions. His context is revealed by the following:



Oh, please. Right there we have where he's coming from made clear: anything short of a single-payer nonprofit health care system is unacceptable, even in the short term. That's just ridiculous, and totally exposes his political naivety and total inability to grasp how reform works in the U.S.

We don't do radical shit like that in one big jump in this country, never have, never will. We do stuff like this new law as a first step. Then we pass a public option. Then when people discover they like that public option, over time it grows to be the biggest single insurer in the country, and then in effect we have a single-payer system. I'm sorry if the inability to do everything at once doesn't sit well with this fellow, but really, he's just throwing a temper-tantrum because he was given a broken cookie.

I recently re-read Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States and reflected that Zinn displayed a similar attitude. A devotee of the idea of revolution, he lamented about the periodic reforms America makes because they make it harder to totally abolish the capitalist system; they make the system robust and flexible instead of brittle. But they also make things better. Reading between the lines of his account, despite how he tries to slant things, it becomes obvious that (for example) black people were slaves, then were in a kind of serfdom, and now merely suffer from statistically worse economic circumstances; that working people used to work sixteen hour days with no unemployment insurance for miserable pay and in horribly unsafe conditions and were shot when they tried to form unions, and now none of that is true; that women's circumstances have similarly improved over time, and so on. The reforms may work to keep the elite in power, but they also work to help the downtrodden. The lesson I take away from all this is that it doesn't pay to get in a hurry. Evolution works. All too frequently, revolution doesn't. I don't want to end up with Napoleon, let alone Stalin.

Slow and steady wins the race, as the tortoise said to the hare. We've made a start on reforming the health care system, and that's all that could reasonably be expected at this time and a whole lot better than might have happened had this sort of purist's views been acted on by everyone who cared.

It appears that you are exposing your agenda, to have people buy the concept of this is all we could get for now. Even Rahm Emmanuel admits it very similar to the Republicans bill in 1993.

Your right, reform doesn't happen overnight. Attempting to bring reform to health care has been in the works for many years. Then Obama gets an opportunity to actually make real progress, because over half the citizens of the U.S. supported a single payer system, and he makes backroom deals with lobbyists. And, he kept the very people he said that he supported during his campaign, out of the loop. He didn't even give them a voice. He wanted a win, any win. But the main winners were the insurance gang. This bill was at the expense of the American people.

If Obama doesn't win a second term, it will be of his own making. You cannot tell the American people one thing and then turn around and favor the corporation. People are in pain, and they are angry, and they will take it out on the politicians at the polls. I've talked with numerous people who are not going to vote for him again. They would rather have a Palin for president. Maybe that would get armchair activists off their rears and into the streets, where they need to be now because of all the deception and hand outs to the corporations.

There were millions of dollars spent to presuade some people that this legislation was the best deal we could get. It was a ploy of smoke and mirrors. It was a deception but it looks as if it presuaded a few.

Originally Posted by Publius

You post this...

Then, a few hours later, you post this...

So much for the Republican "glue" theory, eh?

Gosh, there's so much b.s. here I think I'm gonna get sick...

bye.

What's BS about this? The Republicans wrote a corporate favored bill back then and they still favor the corporation. Nothing new here.

Originally Posted by Deb C

“It's very similar to the bill Republicans advocated in '93 [with its]... basic approach, which is a free-market, market-based-system approach.”

That was Rahm Emmanuel, Chief of Staff to U.S. President Barack Obama, speaking to Jim Lehrer on the just-passed Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (PPAHCA) on the “Public” Broadcasting System’s “News Hour,” March 25, 2010

Originally Posted by Deb C

What's BS about this? The Republicans wrote a corporate favored bill back then and they still favor the corporation. Nothing new here.

Oh, ok, I get it, 2010 Obamacare is just like the 1993 GOP's “free-market, market-based-system approach.”

No, no, Rahm's “It's very similar to the bill Republicans advocated in '93” has nothing in common with "the just-passed Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act."

No, no, no, What's BS about this?

Originally Posted by Deb C

It appears that you are exposing your agenda, to have people buy the concept of this is all we could get for now.

My "agenda" being to do what can be done, yes. I would have preferred more. If you mean I have a stake in accepting this new law as the best that can be achieved, you're mistaken. I just think it's better than doing nothing, and the best that could be done for now given current political reality.

Even Rahm Emmanuel admits it very similar to the Republicans bill in 1993.

Of course it is. Meaning what, exactly?

Your right, reform doesn't happen overnight. Attempting to bring reform to health care has been in the works for many years. Then Obama gets an opportunity to actually make real progress, because over half the citizens of the U.S. supported a single payer system, and he makes backroom deals with lobbyists.

The fact that over half the citizens supported a single payer system meant doodly-squat, and the fault for that has nothing whatever to do with Obama and everything to do with the rules of the Senate requiring 60 votes to pass any legislation. When you say that Obama had "an opportunity to actually make real progress," and imply from this that he had an opportunity to pass a single-payer system, you are dead wrong. He did not have any such opportunity. Now, I think it's conceivable that, if he had jumped into the fray earlier, we might have gotten a public option passed. But single-payer? No way.

There were millions of dollars spent to presuade some people that this legislation was the best deal we could get. It was a ploy of smoke and mirrors. It was a deception but it looks as if it presuaded a few.

Well, quite frankly, you have presented nothing but wishful thinking and misconceptions about how the legislative process works under the current rules in support of the idea that it's NOT the best that could be done.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The fact that over half the citizens supported a single payer system meant doodly-squat, and the fault for that has nothing whatever to do with Obama and everything to do with the rules of the Senate requiring 60 votes to pass any legislation. When you say that Obama had "an opportunity to actually make real progress," and imply from this that he had an opportunity to pass a single-payer system, you are dead wrong. He did not have any such opportunity. Now, I think it's conceivable that, if he had jumped into the fray earlier, we might have gotten a public option passed. But single-payer? No way.

Bingo!

Not only does that mean that we need at least 60% of the population, it means we need even MORE because the Senate is incredibly biased towards rural states. And I don't just mean rural poor like Arkansas or Mississippi, but also those nice swaths of land out west where incomes have been pretty good, and therefore don't really see as much need as the urban centers do.

Given the composition of the Senate and its rules, you probably need more like 80% of the public on board with something in order to make it a reality. At least under current circumstances, where one party (in truth the Democrats would probably do the same) has a vested interest in not being an honest broker.