Democracy in America died today. It just doesn't know it yet.
This is perhaps the most depressing article that I've ever felt the need to write. But America is done, finis, kaput. Oh, we're still strong today, and we will be for a few decades to come, but the mortal blow has been struck.…
Article comments
26 - Chaz
Should I actually engage with a brainwashed conservative troll?
Okay, Arch, let's see: a president who was elected by a majority of people (democracy) pushed a law that was ratified by a majority in Congress (democracy) and then further vindicated by the Supreme Court as Constitutional (democracy). Yet, despite all this, Obama is a dictatorial tyrant who is out to steal your freedom and destroy America. What kind of delusional world are you wandering through?
27 - Dr Dreadful
To be fair to Arch, Chaz, this is the same sort of complaint we heard about the Patriot Act and other Bush-era laws that faced legal challenges and were upheld by the SCOTUS.
People forget that not liking a law does not necessarily mean that it signifies the end of democracy/prosperity/freedom/cheap gasoline/civilization/the planet/Life As We Know It.
...
In perspective, of course, having to have health insurance is SOOOO much worse than being grabbed off the street because of something you borrowed from a library and thrown into a federal jail cell never to be heard from again.
And to Igor: my doctorate is indeed genuine, but it is from a truly dreadful school. ;-)
28 - Chaz
Doc -- that stings a little, but you're right. I was out there protesting the Patriot Act and whining about its awful power as a threat to our freedoms and the end of America, but it was passed lawfully.
29 - Dr Dreadful
PATRIOT is a bad and probably unnecessary law, but the Bush-loaded Supremes of the time didn't see it that way.
The only recourse to opponents now seems to be full repeal, which is the same thing conservatives are now talking about with regard to the Affordable Care Act.
And in defense of Archie, he's nothing if not consistent and his strenuous opposition to PATRIOT is also on record on these boards.
30 - Igor
My apologies, Dr D. Your bemused attitude persuaded me that your title was whimsical.
31 - Dr Dreadful
Happy to clarify, Igor. But you're mistaken about the origin of the bemused attitude. That comes from my time at Unseen University.
32 - Glenn Contrarian
I have to agree with Doc - Archie is nothing if not consistent on matters of conservatism.
Sheesh - in one day I've defended both Warren and Archie. I must be feeling magnanimous after the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act was affirmed.
33 - Not the liberal actor
Glenn, does yesterday's SCOTUS decision make you feel any better?
34 - Glenn Contrarian
Warren -
It means my sons won't be rejected by health insurance companies for pre-existing conditions and that they won't have lifetime caps on their care. So, yeah, I'm really happy, mostly because my sons will have access to health care. I guess in your book, being happy that my sons have health care makes me a (gasp!) socialist.
35 - Not the liberal actor
Re: comment # 34, Glenn, has ANYONE ever denied you or your family access to healthcare? What you say is quite true, but policies that cover pre-existing conditions and have no lifetime caps have always been available. All you had to do was buy one. Why do you think it is acceptable to FORCE me to pay for/share the cost of a healthcare policy that benefits you, that does not directly benefit me? Why do you think it acceptable for me to pay if you or your sons get sick? I think you will be hard-pressed to find anyone who wants to deny you access to healthcare. The "problem" arises when you expect me to, involuntarily, foot your bill, or even share it. It's fine if I voluntarily pay your bill. That is my choice.
So I guess it all boils down to choice versus force.
Does that attitude make me (gasp!) evil?
36 - Igor
@35-Not: Isn't that the essence of 'insurance'?
Why do you think it is acceptable to FORCE me to pay for/share the cost of a healthcare policy that benefits you, that does not directly benefit me?
Maybe insurance is the wrong way to pay for medical care. Maybe the best way is through the system already available for social costs: taxes.
Maybe we need a federal system that provides medical care instead of medical insurance. Then the healthcare system could sub-contract out 'insurance' to insurance companies, using actuarial info to negotiate premiums. That would probably be better because then the parties at the table would have more commensurate powers. As it is, the poor little consumer is all alone up against a billion dollar corporation with high-priced lawyers and almost infinite funds to spend resisting the entreaties of the mere citizen.
37 - Clav
Maybe we need a federal system that provides medical care instead of medical insurance
OMG!! Then we would have hospitals that functioned like the DMV; arrogant physicians with the skill levels (and attitudes) of USPS clerks, and no alternatives.
Lovely idea, Igor.
38 - Igor
I was down at the DMV to solve a knotty problem and everything went swimmingly. Much easier than getting problems solved in my private medical insurance a couple years ago.
My Post Office is quite nice, and the people there are a pleasure to see.
I think your concerns are out-of-date.
39 - Glenn Contrarian
Clav -
Yeah, that's why America's the ONLY first-world nation where people go bankrupt and lose their homes because they can't afford health insurance.
40 - Pam Messingham
Glenn,
And when the rich, via corporate monies, unite and control the government....what is that called? Ummmmm fascism!
41 - Chaz
No, Pam. That is not the definition of fascism. It's an oligarchy. The strict definition of fascism has never been settled upon, but generally it applies to systems of government tied to political or philosophical beliefs that are then strictly (violently) applied to the people.
42 - Chaz
Oh, and as far as American healthcare being the best: I had to wait a month to see an ear specialist. I've got pretty good coverage. And I had to wait a month. So when I hear conservatives say it takes a week or two to see a doctor in Canada, that sounds pretty good to me.
43 - Igor
Hi Chaz. I was in Rodez France when I had an ear infection and it took me about 2 hours to see a physician and get an examination. Cost me about $25. With a $10 prescription I was back in business by dinner time.
44 - Glenn Contrarian
Pam -
You know that and I know that, but I guess it just goes to show how effective money is at changing the public's perception of the meaning of a word.
45 - Clav
@Igor#38:
You say: I think your concerns are out-of-date.
And perhaps you're right.
But your two little personal anecdotes don't even come close to proving your point.
46 - Not the liberal actor
Re: comment #36, Igor, call the system you propose what you want, and have it administered as you want, but your proposal STILL does not address the question I ask. WHY do y'all find it acceptable to dip into my pocket to pay for things over which I have no control?
47 - Zingzing
Warren, you pay for things you have no control over every single day. That's called living in a civil society. Do you not know this?
48 - Zingzing
you pay for wars, you pay for torture, you pay politicians' salaries, you pay for holding murderers in prison long enough that it's cool to kill them, you pay for a lot of things. A few bucks (which you pay now anyway through premiums,) thrown into a pool that helps some innocent person facing bankruptcy or death because they can't afford to get the medical help they need should be way down your list of things to bitch about. It's absurd.
49 - Clav
A few bucks (which you pay now anyway through premiums,) thrown into a pool that helps some innoce--insurance company(ies) make even more money than they were.
There. Fixed it for ya, zing.
Coz it won't be the people who benefit from Obamacare, it will be the insurance companies; they have just been handed a solid gold, locked-in universal franchise by the first bipartisan legislative cooperation we've seen in a long time: Obama and the Dems, with some help from a few Republicans, set it all up, and the "conservative" SCOTUS tied it all up with a pretty red, white and blue ribbon.
Aren't we lucky...
50 - Not the liberal actor
Re: comments # 47 and 48, Zz, Just like Igor, you addressed the WHAT rather than the WHY.
51 - Glenn Contrarian
Warren -
The WHY comes down to a basic question of economic infrastructure. If you take care of your infrastructure, all sectors of the nation - whether business or the public sector - will benefit. This was why Eisenhower got us to build the interstate highway system, if you'll recall, and I don't hear too many griping about the economic benefits it's had over the years.
But we've been ignoring the single most important part of our infrastructure: people. If the people are healthier and more educated and not living on the street, the better and longer they're able to work productively.
Warren, that last sentence in a nutshell is why ALL first-world nations (other than a few filthy-rich OPEC nations) are socialized democracies. If you invest in the people and make sure they are healthy and educated (i.e. able to work), they will work as most humans do.
Or you can put it in the way that most football coaches do: take care of your team, and they will take care of you.
Or you can put it in the way that most military leaders do: take care of the troops, and they will take care of you.
Or you can put it in the way that some business leaders do: take care of your people, and they will take care of you.
52 - Igor
@46-Not: you may remember these words from some famous troublemakers: "...we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
53 - Not the liberal actor
Re: comment # 51 , Glenn, as usual, you talk (in this case write) around the question, but you refuse to answer the specific question I asked in comment # 46. You talk about the Interstate highway system, football coaches, troops, and buisness leaders, but you don't answer my specific question. Besides, your examples are not the same as the situation about which I ask. For example, you cite the Interstate system. Yes, it is infrastructure. We have BOTH benefitted from it. But what you failed to do was explain (1) how my paying for your health insurance has anything to do with infrastructure (you claim it to be an infrastructure question, but offer no argument, no reasoning, or citations), and (2) how I benefit from paying for your health care. I agree that doing things for football teams and troops can boost morale, but whether I do things or not is MY decision.
Re: comment # 52, Igor, I think you have lost touch with reality. How on earth does what you say apply to any comments here?
54 - Glenn Contrarian
Warren -
I did answer your question - you're just choosing to ignore the answer (you're not so simple that you couldn't see it). But I'll try one more time to help you understand.
It is essential for any nation to keep its infrastructure in good shape. PEOPLE are the most basic part of any nation's infrastructure. Got that? Without the people to do every single task in a nation, the nation is nothing...and if the people are not in good health, they cannot work well and often become dependent on the state.
Now think REAL hard about this, Warren - would you rather live in a first-world nation, or a third-world nation? First-world nations are cleaner and safer and are technologically advanced throughout, whereas third-world nations are NOT.
ALL first-world nations (except for America and oil-rich nations in the Middle East) take care of their people FIRST...and as a result the people are more able to work, to not depend on the state for their daily bread. However, if the people do not have access to quality health care, then they are NOT able to work...and sooner or later they go to the emergency room and the taxpayers wind up paying three times the cost.
You're going to pay ANYWAY, Warren - so which makes more sense? To pay to keep someone healthy? Or to pay three times the price when that unhealthy person goes to the emergency room?
And BTW, since when are you going to pay more under Obamacare? Assuming you've got health insurance, that won't change, and your insurance company can't drop your coverage due to the 'lifetime cap' or due to a preexisting condition...AND your insurance company is required to spend at least 80% of their revenue on actual health care instead of "administrative" costs. YOUR costs are not changing at all. The only ones that will pay more are those who can afford health insurance but have chosen not to get it.
55 - Igor
53-Not: nobody here is obliged to answer your questions. We are all aware that most rhetorical questions are designed by the poser as traps to lure the unwary into an uncomfortable defense.
You surely know that, don't you?
56 - Dr Dreadful
He does, Igor.
But for some reason he thinks he's the ONLY one who does.
57 - Dr Dreadful
WHY do y'all find it acceptable to dip into my pocket to pay for things over which I have no control?
Why does it have to be all about your almighty pocket, Warren?
Anyone would think you were the only damn taxpayer in this country...
58 - Igor
It was a rhetorical question, D.D. I was trying to amuse.
59 - Igor
53-Not: if you don't understand then there's no way I can explain it to you.
60 - Dr Dreadful
@ #58: Yes, Igor, I know.