Just for the record, every time we've suffered a major oil spill —EVERY TIME and regardless of which party was in power! — we've put a 6 month to one year moratorium on the activity that caused the spill.
We've shown that we can drill in deep water but we don't have a way to fix the problems that might occur as a result of that drilling ... and only deep water drilling is affected by the moratorium (shallow water drilling will continue).
While I really do understand the economic impact the moratorium will have on an area that has yet to recover from Katrina (and all those other hurricanes), please, let's not be disingenuous and imply that Pres. Obama is doing something out of the ordinary.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Thursday, July 16, 2009
I get it. Why don't you?
So, let me get this straight ...
You like your health insurance company so much, you'd rather pay more than twice as much per person than any other industrialized country for system that routinely fails nearly half of all Americans (well, the half of those not already on some sort of subsidized health insurance program).
Is that right?
I get it, I get it. You like your doctor. You like your therapist. You abhor the thought that some bureaucrat in Washington might tell you that you can't get a certain prescription drug or medical procedure or that you can only consult certain doctors ... I get it.
But you don't get it because your insurance company does that now. Your insurance company routinely tells patients which procedures they can have and which ones they can't, which doctors they can consult and how often. Your insurance company routinely bases prescription drug coverage on which big pharma companies they have contracts with.
In fact, your health insurance company is in the business of denying your claim, in assuring you get the cheapest drugs rather than the drugs you need, and in making sure you stay away from expensive medical procedures, even when they could save your life. If you’ve never had this happen to you, you are either extremely fortunate, have a premium policy or you are much more well off than you realize.
In other words, we already put up with most of the things you say you don't like about health care reform.
Oh, I get it. You don't want to pay for "socialized medicine" or for all those poor people. But, you already do. Roughly 40 percent of Americans have some sort of government subsidized health insurance whether it's because they are government employees, on Medicare, Medicaid, S-Chip or eligible for VA benefits. And, despite the occasional hiccup, most of those people seem to appreciate that coverage.
And, we subsidize the truly indigent because we won't turn them away from treatment of the last resort — the emergency room. (And, don't think for a minute they eventually pay for that treatment — taxpayers pay for it in the form of taxes to our cities and counties.)
In reality, we're not talking about making anyone change insurance companies (meaning you can avoid the dreaded government bureaucrat) or doctors (unless your current insurance company forces you to change) or limiting coverage (other than the limitations your insurance company already imposes).
In reality, this debate about the value of social medicine versus private insurance we're having is really about making sure everyone in this country has some way to afford needed health care.
In reality, our entire economy is hostage to the concept of employer-provided health insurance. It hamstrings entrepreneurship because people are locked into their jobs because that's the only way most of us can afford any health insurance whatsoever — good or bad.
It hampers small businesses because small companies can't afford to offer the same kinds of benefits (read: health insurance) as the mega-corporations and some mega-corporations (can you say: GM?) have experienced some rather catastrophic problems as a direct result of legacy health insurance costs.
In June, Pres. Obama asked why, if the free market was all that, insurance companies should fear the competition of a public option?
As long as insurance companies are for-profit, our health care delivery system will be no better than Cuba's (and you can make the argument that theirs actually provides for all their citizens). The bill the U.S. House passed last week is the best hope our country has ever had to ensure the vast majority of our citizens enjoy this particular liberty.
You like your health insurance company so much, you'd rather pay more than twice as much per person than any other industrialized country for system that routinely fails nearly half of all Americans (well, the half of those not already on some sort of subsidized health insurance program).
Is that right?
I get it, I get it. You like your doctor. You like your therapist. You abhor the thought that some bureaucrat in Washington might tell you that you can't get a certain prescription drug or medical procedure or that you can only consult certain doctors ... I get it.
But you don't get it because your insurance company does that now. Your insurance company routinely tells patients which procedures they can have and which ones they can't, which doctors they can consult and how often. Your insurance company routinely bases prescription drug coverage on which big pharma companies they have contracts with.
In fact, your health insurance company is in the business of denying your claim, in assuring you get the cheapest drugs rather than the drugs you need, and in making sure you stay away from expensive medical procedures, even when they could save your life. If you’ve never had this happen to you, you are either extremely fortunate, have a premium policy or you are much more well off than you realize.
In other words, we already put up with most of the things you say you don't like about health care reform.
Oh, I get it. You don't want to pay for "socialized medicine" or for all those poor people. But, you already do. Roughly 40 percent of Americans have some sort of government subsidized health insurance whether it's because they are government employees, on Medicare, Medicaid, S-Chip or eligible for VA benefits. And, despite the occasional hiccup, most of those people seem to appreciate that coverage.
And, we subsidize the truly indigent because we won't turn them away from treatment of the last resort — the emergency room. (And, don't think for a minute they eventually pay for that treatment — taxpayers pay for it in the form of taxes to our cities and counties.)
In reality, we're not talking about making anyone change insurance companies (meaning you can avoid the dreaded government bureaucrat) or doctors (unless your current insurance company forces you to change) or limiting coverage (other than the limitations your insurance company already imposes).
In reality, this debate about the value of social medicine versus private insurance we're having is really about making sure everyone in this country has some way to afford needed health care.
In reality, our entire economy is hostage to the concept of employer-provided health insurance. It hamstrings entrepreneurship because people are locked into their jobs because that's the only way most of us can afford any health insurance whatsoever — good or bad.
It hampers small businesses because small companies can't afford to offer the same kinds of benefits (read: health insurance) as the mega-corporations and some mega-corporations (can you say: GM?) have experienced some rather catastrophic problems as a direct result of legacy health insurance costs.
In June, Pres. Obama asked why, if the free market was all that, insurance companies should fear the competition of a public option?
As long as insurance companies are for-profit, our health care delivery system will be no better than Cuba's (and you can make the argument that theirs actually provides for all their citizens). The bill the U.S. House passed last week is the best hope our country has ever had to ensure the vast majority of our citizens enjoy this particular liberty.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
I'll be in the bunker 'til it's over
I just got finished running all my traps. The CNN electoral map. The poll of polls poll. HuffPo. WaPo. Stanley Fish.
It looks like Obama has a clear field for the rest of the week. Even Joe Scarborough said there is no way McCain can win. Barak would have to lose and it would take an "October Surprise" of historic proportions for that to happen.
That's what scares me. Democrats have this way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (does anyone remember 2000? 2004?) and they (we) seem pretty good at it. In fact, this election has been ours to lose from the beginning. For a while there (April, May), we seemed determined to self destruct.
For the last few weeks, Tia and I have stayed in the safety and comfort of the echo chamber. You know, the liberal, elite media ... the outlets mentioned above plus Salon.com, NYT, MSNBC prime time (Chris, Rachel and Keith; Keith may be a blow hard but he's OUR blow hard), Jon and Steven.
From now through next Tuesday, I'm going to be very careful that no unauthorized (considering our sources, perhaps I should use air quotes here) news source finds its way into our home.
We'll just stay in the bunker 'til it's all over.
It looks like Obama has a clear field for the rest of the week. Even Joe Scarborough said there is no way McCain can win. Barak would have to lose and it would take an "October Surprise" of historic proportions for that to happen.
That's what scares me. Democrats have this way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (does anyone remember 2000? 2004?) and they (we) seem pretty good at it. In fact, this election has been ours to lose from the beginning. For a while there (April, May), we seemed determined to self destruct.
For the last few weeks, Tia and I have stayed in the safety and comfort of the echo chamber. You know, the liberal, elite media ... the outlets mentioned above plus Salon.com, NYT, MSNBC prime time (Chris, Rachel and Keith; Keith may be a blow hard but he's OUR blow hard), Jon and Steven.
From now through next Tuesday, I'm going to be very careful that no unauthorized (considering our sources, perhaps I should use air quotes here) news source finds its way into our home.
We'll just stay in the bunker 'til it's all over.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Have a little shame
It shouldn't surprise me, I suppose. After all, I live in rural Texas.
But, when an election official in my hometown told me that an awful lot of folks who identify themselves with the Democratic Party simply could not bring themselves to vote for a black man, I was taken aback. And disappointed.
After all, we've gotten past all that, haven’t we? Haven't we?
Well, perhaps I'm just naïve … because we haven't.
Many of these people should know better — should, at the very least, feel a little shame for uttering those words out loud ... and, I cleaned the statement up a bit for consumption in a family newspaper.
But, I suspect too many of them feel it's perfectly natural to distrust a black man in power, though I'm at a loss to explain why anyone should feel this way.
Over the last couple of months, I've wanted to look at my conservative friends (and I have many of them), pat them gently on the cheek and, in my best baby-talk voice, ask, "What's the matter, does the mean black man scare you?"
I think he does. I think Barak Obama’s obvious intelligence, grace and poise terrifies an awful lot of rural Texans. His very existence challenges the prejudices they learned growing up, then perpetuated at their own kitchen tables.
This week, I got an email from another close (conservative) friend bemoaning the fact that, unless the stories about his “character and past associations” don’t surface soon, Obama will win the election.
He may not have meant it that way but those are code words for “the color of his skin.”
It also appears to be the only real topic at the most recent rallies for the Republican presidential ticket. They can’t talk about the economy or the war so they indulge in race baiting. My friends, that’s plain scary.
No, I’ve heard neither John McCain nor Sarah Palin actually say the words “terrorist,” or “black man” or “Obama” in the same sentence but the angry vitriol spewing from those attending the rallies is enough to make sane people fear violence. And that neither of the candidates (and that would be John McCain, the war hero, and/or Sarah Palin, the devote Christian) slapped down those bigots yelling the racist and discriminatory slogans is unprecedented. Even the conservative arm of the mainstream media is appalled.
Desperation will allow otherwise reasonable people to commit heinous things but McCain’s lack of a reaction is tantamount to encouragement. When the ostensibly reasonable people at the top of the ticket of a major national political party tacitly encourage race-baiting and violent language toward any ethnic group, it won’t be long until we see actual acts of violence toward that ethnic group. Especially in places like rural Texas where we’re not even a couple of generations removed from Jim Crow and the mob.
I’d expect this from the tattered remains of Strom Thurmond’s Dixiecrat party, or from supporters of Gov. George Wallace’s aborted presidential run, not from someone like John McCain. Is he really so desperate?
It’s one thing to disagree with a politician’s stand on the issues. Frankly, if you’re really paying attention, you won’t agree fully with everything ANY politician says … if you do, you’re lying to yourself or that politician is lying to you.
Further, it’s perfectly acceptable to vote against a politician you disagree with — heck, I could make the argument that it’s your civic duty to get out and actively campaign against the candidate.
But, have the decency to admit to yourself, if to no one else, why you’ll cast your vote the way you will.
And, if that reason has more to do with the color of a person’s skin than it does with that person’s political philosophy, be very ashamed.
But, when an election official in my hometown told me that an awful lot of folks who identify themselves with the Democratic Party simply could not bring themselves to vote for a black man, I was taken aback. And disappointed.
After all, we've gotten past all that, haven’t we? Haven't we?
Well, perhaps I'm just naïve … because we haven't.
Many of these people should know better — should, at the very least, feel a little shame for uttering those words out loud ... and, I cleaned the statement up a bit for consumption in a family newspaper.
But, I suspect too many of them feel it's perfectly natural to distrust a black man in power, though I'm at a loss to explain why anyone should feel this way.
Over the last couple of months, I've wanted to look at my conservative friends (and I have many of them), pat them gently on the cheek and, in my best baby-talk voice, ask, "What's the matter, does the mean black man scare you?"
I think he does. I think Barak Obama’s obvious intelligence, grace and poise terrifies an awful lot of rural Texans. His very existence challenges the prejudices they learned growing up, then perpetuated at their own kitchen tables.
This week, I got an email from another close (conservative) friend bemoaning the fact that, unless the stories about his “character and past associations” don’t surface soon, Obama will win the election.
He may not have meant it that way but those are code words for “the color of his skin.”
It also appears to be the only real topic at the most recent rallies for the Republican presidential ticket. They can’t talk about the economy or the war so they indulge in race baiting. My friends, that’s plain scary.
No, I’ve heard neither John McCain nor Sarah Palin actually say the words “terrorist,” or “black man” or “Obama” in the same sentence but the angry vitriol spewing from those attending the rallies is enough to make sane people fear violence. And that neither of the candidates (and that would be John McCain, the war hero, and/or Sarah Palin, the devote Christian) slapped down those bigots yelling the racist and discriminatory slogans is unprecedented. Even the conservative arm of the mainstream media is appalled.
Desperation will allow otherwise reasonable people to commit heinous things but McCain’s lack of a reaction is tantamount to encouragement. When the ostensibly reasonable people at the top of the ticket of a major national political party tacitly encourage race-baiting and violent language toward any ethnic group, it won’t be long until we see actual acts of violence toward that ethnic group. Especially in places like rural Texas where we’re not even a couple of generations removed from Jim Crow and the mob.
I’d expect this from the tattered remains of Strom Thurmond’s Dixiecrat party, or from supporters of Gov. George Wallace’s aborted presidential run, not from someone like John McCain. Is he really so desperate?
It’s one thing to disagree with a politician’s stand on the issues. Frankly, if you’re really paying attention, you won’t agree fully with everything ANY politician says … if you do, you’re lying to yourself or that politician is lying to you.
Further, it’s perfectly acceptable to vote against a politician you disagree with — heck, I could make the argument that it’s your civic duty to get out and actively campaign against the candidate.
But, have the decency to admit to yourself, if to no one else, why you’ll cast your vote the way you will.
And, if that reason has more to do with the color of a person’s skin than it does with that person’s political philosophy, be very ashamed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)