We aren't going to have honest debate about healthcare until after primaries
by bruh21, Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 08:29:10 AM EST
As many of you know, healthcare has been a big issue for me for a long time. As I explained elsewhere, my family-- specifically- my mother died from the crappy healthcare system that we now see ourselved under.
I had hoped in the heat of the primary season we could still have a reasonable discussion about healthcare reforms. But I realize so long as people care more about candidate advocacy or idealogical claptrap that will be an impossibility.
I will be blunt- and this is broader than just healthcare, but it has come up with healthcare- there are a lot of people due to whatever candidate they support who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. One supporter when faced with a definition that they didn't like on wikipedia changed the definition of universal healthcare to reflect that of Obama's Big Insurance industry based definition.
These discussions over healthcare for me didn't begin in 2007, they began in 2000 when I had to face the situation with my mother in which she was without healthcare and facing cancer. I've been following these issues that long. First offline, then in reading people like Krugman, Ezra Klein, and my own research into issues like how doctors treat people of color as patients, etc. I don't see this as idealogical or according to my candidate. I am open to any analysis that makes ECONOMIC sense to me based on what I know or can be shown to make ECONOMIC sense. The long run solution involves this- we need to paying less and we need better outcomes. Period. That's what I care about.
Yet, over a D Kos we have Kos absolutely talking out of ignorance and had to be corrected by Krugman over something (the fact that the mandated plans contain a public option and no denial of healthcare) that Kos absolutely should have known, but-for his idealogical Libertarian positions. I see people here regularly do the same things for their candidate in the presidential race.
When I read someone writing that a healthy person will choose a higher cost private plan over a public one because they are healthy- I have to wonder what economic principles are they following? In the state in which I live I know students on the public plan because they are healthy and the plan in cheaper and won't kick them off should they not be like those in the private sector.
I wonder the same when someone says free riders isn't a factor or they don't understand why I am mentioned Walmart. If you don't know these things- you don't understand or haven't been following these issues. To comment on them without that understanding bothers me because we then aren't speak the same language.
Let me be clear- I am not an expert. There are tons of things I don't know still about this issue. I just know enough to have done my due diligence for understanding the discussion outside of idealogical or candidate specific analysis. Like the defintion univeral healthcare- when you say that Obama is using the correct definition- I know about the efforts well before Obama showed up by the industry to change the definition to a waterdown version that would protect their power. The fact Obama used their definition bothers me.
It especially bothers me when people say they want single payer as a defense of Obama, and an offense against Clinton and Edwards. It's like they are ultimately telling me they have no idea what they are talking about because single payer is also a mandate based system. It's like these issues really do not matter other than winning temporary rhectorical battles. Is that the point? Or is it that you are so involved with your candidates that you don't understand that the issue isn't about them?
If we can't do these discussions for more than this, if we can't look beyond even our own candidates- then how the hell is anything going to really ever change? This isn't about them or cherished beliefs.