American health-care act

[Stephen]

For fuck's sake!

Can someone in the US please explain to me why some Americans are so hell bent on not having universal healthcare that they will resort to violence? It may be that I receive all my news from British liberal left media but I can't for the life of me understand how can anyone argue against this and be taken seriously, let alone actually endanger the passage if the bill. I'm assuming that the people throwing bricks aren't also jumping up to support the Taliban's right to extremism in protection of their liberty? I just don't get it.

[Dohol]

For fuck's sake!

Can someone in the US please explain to me why some Americans are so hell bent on not having universal healthcare that they will resort to violence? It may be that I receive all my news from British liberal left media but I can't for the life of me understand how can anyone argue against this and be taken seriously, let alone actually endanger the passage if the bill. I'm assuming that the people throwing bricks aren't also jumping up to support the Taliban's right to extremism in protection of their liberty? I just don't get it.

There's nothing to get. It's not rational. It's mostly white, rural, formerly middle class people experiencing hard times and a changing world, egged on by media empires owned by the wealthy for the advancement of the elite..

Nothing to be done..

[Stephen]

It's mostly white, rural, formerly middle class people experiencing hard times and a changing world, egged on by media empires owned by the wealthy for the advancement of the elite..

Right, so these people don't grasp the fact that this bill will entitle them to medical insurance in these hard times they are experiencing? really?

I'd be interested to know on what grounds they are being egged on - if anyone knows a youtube link...

[free math]

so many examples on MM:
Beck asserts: "The second American revolution is being played out right now" http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003240016
Beck tells country to pray: "It's 9/11 all over again except we didn't have the collapsing buildings" http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003250060

http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/health_care_reform

[surfer]

First of all, the anger from some quarters has very little if anything to do with healthcare.

Second, everything you need to know about these wingnut lunatics is contained in this 13 minute "comedic" diatribe:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-m ... ibertarian

[leroysghost]

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8APd0OBf ... re=related)

creates



you hate to boil it down to the elite telling lies to people who are stupid and/or racist...but there really is no other explanation.

[P. Wretch]

Can someone in the US please explain to me why some Americans are so hell bent on not having universal healthcare that they will resort to violence?

I'm not in the US either, but I'd say it's fairly obvious if you look at it in terms of American history. There is, and presumably has been since the 17th century, a widespread, highly emotional, populist-libertarian ideology, with roots in dissenting Protestantism, that is inherently suspicious of the state (i.e. the Federal Govt), and resents its supposed control over individual lives. According to this world view, private companies and institutions (e.g. health insurance companies) are always more trustworthy and efficient than government-run ones, because of the fact that they are motivated solely by profit, which is seen as a more honest motive than any the government could possess. Usefully for the business world, this is an ideology that tallies very well with that of neoliberal capitalism.

All of the above can sometimes seem incomprehensible to Europeans, who have traditionally had a more benign conception of the state (Britain being closest to America in terms of the popularity of conservative notions of 'freedom'), although of course the general trend over the last thirty years has been towards the dismantling and privatisation of state-run services across the continent.

[billygomberg]

Can someone in the US please explain to me why some Americans are so hell bent on not having universal healthcare that they will resort to violence?

I'm not in the US either, but I'd say it's fairly obvious if you look at it in terms of American history. There is, and presumably has been since the 17th century, a widespread, highly emotional, populist-libertarian ideology, with roots in dissenting Protestantism, that is inherently suspicious of the state (i.e. the Federal Govt), and resents its supposed control over individual lives. According to this world view, private companies and institutions (e.g. health insurance companies) are always more trustworthy and efficient than government-run ones, because of the fact that they are motivated solely by profit, which is seen as a more honest motive that any the government could possess. Usefully for the business world, this is an ideology that tallies very well with that of neoliberal capitalism.

All of the above can sometimes seem incomprehensible to Europeans, who have traditionally had a more benign conception of the state (Britain being closest to America in terms of the popularity of conservative notions of 'freedom'), although of course the general trend over the last thirty years has been towards the dismantling and privatisation of state-run services across the continent.

see Naomi Klein's pop-hist-crit Shock Doctrine if you want to spend 600p really digging into the roots of the economic & govt forces at work over the last 40+ years to completely hamstring the state in favor of the corporation. not much investigation on how a mass of the American public swallows the ideology wholesale w/out so much as a thought, but hey.

[RFKorp]

Can someone in the US please explain to me why some Americans are so hell bent on not having universal healthcare that they will resort to violence?

I'm not in the US either, but I'd say it's fairly obvious if you look at it in terms of American history. There is, and presumably has been since the 17th century, a widespread, highly emotional, populist-libertarian ideology, with roots in dissenting Protestantism, that is inherently suspicious of the state (i.e. the Federal Govt), and resents its supposed control over individual lives. According to this world view, private companies and institutions (e.g. health insurance companies) are always more trustworthy and efficient than government-run ones, because of the fact that they are motivated solely by profit, which is seen as a more honest motive that any the government could possess. Usefully for the business world, this is an ideology that tallies very well with that of neoliberal capitalism.

I'm glad someone was able to verbalize this well. Since, speaking as one such person who doesn't particularly trust the government to handle most tasks the right way and is concerned by the growing regulations on and general shrinking of the private sector, my post kept coming out way too hostile.

It's not that the opponents of this bill don't want expand healthcare coverage to those who need it. It's just that we don't want to see the country go bankrupt while still failing to do so effectively. And, as far as my pessimistic outlook goes, that's the most likely result of the current Federal plan.

[Gaendaal]

According to this world view, private companies and institutions (e.g. health insurance companies) are always more trustworthy and efficient than government-run ones, because of the fact that they are motivated solely by profit, which is seen as a more honest motive than any the government could possess.

Working for a profit-motivated private company I always find this belief to be entirely hilarious.

Take insurance companies as an example. They're interested in profit and the best way for them to maximise profit is to take your money then never pay out. That is the perfect, Golden Path operating model of insurance companies (of any profit-orientated company, as it happens).

Sorry, didn't mean to continue the derailment.

[billygomberg]

I'm glad someone was able to verbalize this well. Since, speaking as one such person who doesn't particularly trust the government to handle most tasks the right way and is concerned by the growing regulations on and general shrinking of the private sector, my post kept coming out way too hostile.

It's not that the opponents of this bill don't want expand healthcare coverage to those who need it. It's just that we don't want to see the country go bankrupt while still failing to do so effectively. And, as far as my pessimistic outlook goes, that's the most likely result of the current Federal plan.

my main problem with the debate is that opponents do not have a solution, they are just raising hell, not because our current system is good, nor because they have a better option. as such, I think this whole debate has revealed a fundamental deficiency in our govt - not necessarily it's structure, but the people who run it, especially those in Congress who are from left to right coming off as total imbeciles throughout this whole thing.

I agree that this is also exposing a deep rooting Libertarian vibe in the country. when I was living in Iowa this was much easier to sense. I've maintained for a while now that one of this country's major flaws is the two-party system. "you are with us or against us" as opposed to being for the people, or for the general betterment of this country, and I such I empathize with a lot of anti-govt sentiments. for the last ten years or so, everyone in the positions of political power in the US has royally failed to understand, communicate, and protect the interests of the people of this country.

that said, our health care system sucks, too. I'm much less pessimistic than Richard on this but I think that is just where the two of us differ.

[billygomberg]

Sorry, didn't mean to continue the derailment.

go about yr bizns nothing to see here

[RFKorp]

my main problem with the debate is that opponents do not have a solution, they are just raising hell, not because our current system is good, nor because they have a better option.

Well, the Republican party did propose an alternate bill. Not that it was perfect either. Truthfully, I think the bill being passed will do less and cost more than if they had just expanded the coverage range of Medicare.

I've maintained for a while now that one of this country's major flaws is the two-party system. "you are with us or against us" as opposed to being for the people, or for the general betterment of this country, and I such I empathize with a lot of anti-govt sentiments.

Yeah, two-party system sucks. And although it would have probably made things even worse for a while, I was secretly sort of hoping the tea party movement would grow into something unified enough to present a candidate and fuck up electoral expectations in the next round. But I don't think your last statement is really accurate. I think most of these politicians are narcissistic enough to completely believe that what they are doing IS always for the people. In fact, Obama's administration (though I don't think him directly) has expressed the belief that a policy change like this health bill is important to pass even if so many people oppose it BECAUSE THE PEOPLE AREN'T SMART ENOUGH TO REALIZE IT IS GOOD FOR THEM. Which, as an attitude about your constituents, blows my mind.

Take insurance companies as an example. They're interested in profit and the best way for them to maximise profit is to take your money then never pay out. That is the perfect, Golden Path operating model of insurance companies (of any profit-orientated company, as it happens).

Sure, that's will maximize profit in the current period, but it won't keep a company profitable if the customers leave to find an insurance company that will take better care of them.

[Nim Chimpsky]

my main problem with the debate is that opponents do not have a solution, they are just raising hell, not because our current system is good, nor because they have a better option.

I haven't been following the debate but I find it hard to believe that no one who opposes the changes has come up with an alternative. Is it not more the case that the debate between politicians has been partisan and neanderthal and the mass media has not given air time to anyone with a sensible alternative?

In Britain expenditure on the National Health Service went up by 138% during the first 11 years of the current government but productivity dropped by 7%. In spite of this the idea that you can get better health care, whilst spending less money is too counter-intuitive for mainstream political debate.

[Gaendaal]

Take insurance companies as an example. They're interested in profit and the best way for them to maximise profit is to take your money then never pay out. That is the perfect, Golden Path operating model of insurance companies (of any profit-orientated company, as it happens).

Sure, that's will maximize profit in the current period, but it won't keep a company profitable if the customers leave to find an insurance company that will take better care of them.

Which is why it's a dream policy for most companies. You have to at least pay out occasionally but the company has a vested interest in only doing this as a last resort.

My point is that private companies only care about the money their customers provide, not the customers themselves. If you swap that to governments only caring about the votes their constituents provide, not the constituents themselves, then I don't see why you should trust one over the other.

In Britain expenditure on the National Health Service went up by 138% during the first 11 years of the current government but productivity dropped by 7%. In spite of this the idea that you can get better health care, whilst spending less money is too counter-intuitive for mainstream political debate.

Ignoring how you'd actually measure productivity (enforced production of productivity measures being, in my experience, one of the heaviest drains on productivity) I don't think anyone's seriously saying that the NHS is the best solution or a solution which will map onto the US without problems.

It seems quite glaring that running the NHS like a business (with productivity measures and profit considerations being run by a layer of otherwise useless-to-patients managerial staff) is causing the loss of efficiency and productivity...

[billygomberg]

my main problem with the debate is that opponents do not have a solution, they are just raising hell, not because our current system is good, nor because they have a better option.

Well, the Republican party did propose an alternate bill. Not that it was perfect either. Truthfully, I think the bill being passed will do less and cost more than if they had just expanded the coverage range of Medicare.

and many Republican ideas were included in the final bill. the problem, as I see it, is that most Americans don't know shit about their health care, and many politicians are totally myopic about the possibilities. I bet most people do not even know what Medicare IS, and how it WORKS, and when you become ELIGIBLE.

I've maintained for a while now that one of this country's major flaws is the two-party system. "you are with us or against us" as opposed to being for the people, or for the general betterment of this country, and I such I empathize with a lot of anti-govt sentiments.

Yeah, two-party system sucks. And although it would have probably made things even worse for a while, I was secretly sort of hoping the tea party movement would grow into something unified enough to present a candidate and fuck up electoral expectations in the next round. But I don't think your last statement is really accurate. I think most of these politicians are narcissistic enough to completely believe that what they are doing IS always for the people. In fact, Obama's administration (though I don't think him directly) has expressed the belief that a policy change like this health bill is important to pass even if so many people oppose it BECAUSE THE PEOPLE AREN'T SMART ENOUGH TO REALIZE IT IS GOOD FOR THEM. Which, as an attitude about your constituents, blows my mind.

I think my statement is accurate, as it was not about politicians intentions or self-image, but the actual results of their actions in and out of office.

and yr last point is really good, and a lot of people, myself included, often miss it.

[Nim Chimpsky]

In Britain expenditure on the National Health Service went up by 138% during the first 11 years of the current government but productivity dropped by 7%. In spite of this the idea that you can get better health care, whilst spending less money is too counter-intuitive for mainstream political debate.

Ignoring how you'd actually measure productivity (enforced production of productivity measures being, in my experience, one of the heaviest drains on productivity) I don't think anyone's seriously saying that the NHS is the best solution or a solution which will map onto the US without problems.

It seems quite glaring that running the NHS like a business (with productivity measures and profit considerations being run by a layer of otherwise useless-to-patients managerial staff) is causing the loss of efficiency and productivity...

My head is full of cold so apologies that my point wasn't well made. I wasn't thinking about the NHS as a model for anywhere (including Britain). I was thinking more about the irrationality that surrounds public debates about the subject of healthcare. Just as in the States there are people who are resistant to both reasoned argument and change, so too in Britain - it's just that the 2 countries are starting from very different postitions.

I'm not sure that anyone could claim the NHS was being run like a business as it would have gone bankrupt a long time ago (The NHS is the world's third biggest employer after the Chinese Army and Indian State Railways), but you're right about the massive number of middle managers that have been recruited and who now outnumber the doctors and nurses.

[jkudler]

uhh. . . anyone who is my facebook friend or knows me "IRL" knows that i have been fairly obsessed with health care reform and assorted policy minutiae. i am gonna try and stick to answering the first post, but i can't let some of what richard has said just slide (sorry buddy!):

It's not that the opponents of this bill don't want expand healthcare coverage to those who need it. It's just that we don't want to see the country go bankrupt while still failing to do so effectively. And, as far as my pessimistic outlook goes, that's the most likely result of the current Federal plan.

yes, the plan costs a lot of money. but it's also PAID FOR in the bill, via some savings and various new taxes. you can argue that those making over $250k/yr should be able to keep that extra 3% or whatever it is, but you can't argue that the bill is a drain, as it actually *shrinks* the deficit. further, doing nothing will also lead to bankruptcy, as medicare costs, while rising much less quickly than inefficient private insurance, are also unsustainable, due to general medical inflation, which is always higher than regular inflation.

Well, the Republican party did propose an alternate bill. Not that it was perfect either. Truthfully, I think the bill being passed will do less and cost more than if they had just expanded the coverage range of Medicare.

the republican bill was a joke, and don't think a single health care economist supported it. i agree with the latter part about medicare expansion. this might have happened but for joe lieberman.

In fact, Obama's administration (though I don't think him directly) has expressed the belief that a policy change like this health bill is important to pass even if so many people oppose it BECAUSE THE PEOPLE AREN'T SMART ENOUGH TO REALIZE IT IS GOOD FOR THEM. Which, as an attitude about your constituents, blows my mind.

really? it's not that uncommon.
http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blo ... ego-driven

clearly spoken, in any case, by someone who has lived in manhattan his whole life. to quote lawrence summers (current director of the national econ. council): "look around you. there are idiots."

further, it's no secret that the right has waged war on higher ed, in the belief that it's a breeding ground for lefties. check out reagan defunding the UC's, mostly because of pique at their protests. as to the health care bill itself, it is remarkably large and complex, and i think it's pretty fair to say that most people (this writer included) don't fully understand it. that's probably necessary. i don't understand how airplanes work, but i still believe in them.

anyways. .. to the initial question: i think it's complicated. a lot of people oppose this bill from the left, largely because a major mechanism for insuring more people is subsidizing the purchase of private insurance (individuals making up to 133% of the poverty line will be eligible for medicaid, which is a government-run program). many people have a knee-jerk hatred of the insurers and feel this is just a gift to them, so they oppose the expansion of insurance availability simply because they can't tolerate the result that private insurers stand to make more money. i very much relate to frustration over this point, though i personally find opposing the overall bill for this reason extraordinarily myopic. there are also sundry other varieties of left-wing opposition, mostly over the fact that this bill does far less than the left had hoped (for instance, it contains no generally available "public option" - a government run plan for people in all income brackets).

but yes, the bulk of the opposition, and especially the violent opposition, is from the right. i think it's complex. partly, it's in the (inaccurate) belief that this bill somehow allows public funding for abortions or otherwise makes abortions more widely available. that is incorrect, but it became a sticking point in congress (among conservative democrats).

beyond that, i think it's, as other people mentioned, general free-floating hatred of the government. this was ably manipulated and stoked by media figures and elected officials. for example, via glenn beck's general fear-mongering and invocations of dread ("you know who else proposed universal health care??? HITLER!!!") or sarah palin's claim that the bill provided for "death panels." these tendencies go back to hofstader's much-referenced "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Parano ... n_Politics).

Sure, that's will maximize profit in the current period, but it won't keep a company profitable if the customers leave to find an insurance company that will take better care of them.

this is not really how insurance works, of course. for one, your employer generally chooses your insurer. it's a big pain for them to switch. and what good does that do if your big operation has already been declined? most people have no basis on which to judge their insurance (not needing major care) until it's too late (they fail to fund chemo or whatever). further, health insurance companies enjoy a federal exemption from anti-trust law (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... ance_N.htm). the market simply isn't very efficient. i suppose you could argue for the creation of more insurance companies to increase competition, but this is what the public option was designed to do. in any case, it's interesting you are suspicious of the government, because people can also "leave" a government they don't like, via elections every 2 years. not to mention lots of oversight from internal auditors, the press, and watchdog groups. perhaps more to the point, medicare is enormously popular and well-liked, and it's fully funded and operated by the federal government. demagoguing has been so effective, though, that i have literally talked to medicare recipients who say "keep government out of healthcare!!" while also telling me they are happy with medicare. this is an actual exchange i had! or this:
http://www.slate.com/id/2224350/

anyways, i am really interested in this stuff and probably as up on it as anyone here (apologies), so feel free to ask more questions, foreigners.

-jesse

ps- this is hard to over-state:

and many Republican ideas were included in the final bill. the problem, as I see it, is that most Americans don't know shit about their health care, and many politicians are totally myopic about the possibilities. I bet most people do not even know what Medicare IS, and how it WORKS, and when you become ELIGIBLE.

[jon abbey]

ugh, the last thing I need is to get into another discussion like this with the kud, but:

yes, the plan costs a lot of money. but it's also PAID FOR in the bill, via some savings and various new taxes. you can argue that those making over $250k/yr should be able to keep that extra 3% or whatever it is, but you can't argue that the bill is a drain, as it actually *shrinks* the deficit.

you absolutely can't say this like it's a fact, no matter who has studied it or signed off on it. no one has any real idea and won't for years, it's too complex.

[faster]

those in Congress who are from left to right coming off as total imbeciles throughout this whole thing.

There's nobody in Congress on the left. There is no viable left wing in American politics, and there hasn't been for a long time.

"you are with us or against us" as opposed to being for the people, or for the general betterment of this country

The problem here is not with the US government or this US government or these US politicians--the problem is that the division of groups of people into nations conceals a whole raft of fierce and irredeemable conflicts of interest. Nobody can be for all the people. The question, then, with apologies to Howard Zinn (and Camus) is which people the structures of power are serving, a question I can't help but see as always already answered, if not outright tautological.