More Like This, Please

by publius

I caught the end of this CNN segment, and Atrios saved me the trouble of tracking it down:

ROBERTS: Welcome back to the most news in the morning. How far would you go to get good health insurance? One man who lost his job and medical benefits reenlisted in the Army just to get his family covered and then he paid the ultimate price. This is a story that you'll see only here on CNN.

We've had approximately one month of straight coverage of the Town Hallers.  Politico and Halperin have also given us a month of meta-who's-up-and-down coverage.  It might be nice if September could provide at least some coverage of the stories of the millions of Americans who suffer from a lack of health insurance, or a lack of enough insurance.  These stories are heartbreaking, and infuriating.  But they're the reason why we have to fight for this thing.

The GOP's alternative is essentially (1) Don't get sick; and (2) Don't lose your job.  They don't, of course, intentionally want to hurt people.  But that's certainly the effect of their do-nothingism on health coverage reform.

Comments

[ChrisJ]

"It might be nice if September could provide at least some coverage of the stories of the millions of Americans who suffer from a lack of health insurance, or a lack of enough insurance. These stories are heartbreaking, and infuriating. But they're the reason why we have to fight for this thing."

Agreed. I'm in the doctor biz myself and I see this sort of thing nearly every week. You'd think human interest stories like that would be at least as newsworthy as a Town Howl.

[Shane]

This story is terribly heartbreaking, and sadly, more common than many realize.

Many married soldiers, especially those with between 2-5 years in, are struggling with these questions right now. Soldiers who don't particularly care for the Army or their jobs are staying in because they're expecting a child. Many are torn by the fact that they know they're signing up, at a minimum, to be separated from their spouses and children for much of the next few years.

The situation is bad for the soldier and bad for the Army - when these external forces push soldiers into reenlisting when they wouldn't have done so otherwise, the benefits of having a volunteer military are diluted somewhat.

I expect that with the unemployment rate and the economy being in the state that they're in, the Army will have a higher number of soldiers for whom a main motivation for enlisting or reenlisting will be the financial stability and the health benefits.

[Jay Jerome]

They don't, of course, intentionally want to hurt people. But that's certainly the effect of their do-nothingism on health coverage reform.

But they say doing the suggested Democratic somethingism will lead to a disasterism.

And since it's impossible to understand with any degree of certainty what most of the language of the bill means, or the unintended consequences that will devolve out of the gobblygook language in it, that makes a lot of people suspicious/nervous that if passed it may do more harm than good.

[publius]

JJ -- I think that would be a fair argument in a land where the GOP was acting in good faith. If they said, "we recognize the problem but think your solution is more harmful, so let's work on this," fine.

But that's not what's driving the opposition. To me, they're are essentially playing with the lives of millions just to deny Obama a victory.

[Jay Jerome]

"To me, they're are essentially playing with the lives of millions just to deny Obama a victory."

It's not whether or not Obama is denied or gains a victory, Pub -- it's what what kind of health plan is signed into law.

I think there are some significant flaws in the plan in its present form. And I doubt they'll be scrutinized properly in this overheated contentious political environment. Both sides are exaggerating the upsides and downsides.

They need to scrap what they have, and start over. Wait a year or two, and focus on the economy. If the economic situation improves-- unemployment down, jobs up, then the level of anxiety in the nation will subside, and the parameters of the debate can be more clearly defined.

[Oyster Tea]

Oh C'mon JJ. We've only been at this for about 80 years.

[Turbulence]

And since it's impossible to understand with any degree of certainty what most of the language of the bill means, or the unintended consequences that will devolve out of the gobblygook language in it, that makes a lot of people suspicious/nervous that if passed it may do more harm than good.

This is absurd. The exact same statement can be made for almost any law passed by Congress. Including the wildly popular ones.

Lots of people loved Medicare Part D although the text was hundreds of pages long and full of goblygook language. But that didn't matter because normal people do not read legislation. They didn't read the Medicare Part D legislation and they're not going to read the legislation currently under discussion. So that can't be making people nervous or suspicious.

[Hartmut]

They don't, of course, intentionally want to hurt people. But that's certainly the effect of their do-nothingism on health coverage reform.

Sorry but the impression I get is that some do get a hard-on thinking how people suffer as a result of being denied care (esp. if it is 'Them' that suffer). And some of those radicals would insist on the denying part, even if the undesired person could pay.

[Nombrilisme Vide]

They need to scrap what they have, and start over. Wait a year or two, and focus on the economy. If the economic situation improves-- unemployment down, jobs up, then the level of anxiety in the nation will subside, and the parameters of the debate can be more clearly defined.

And hmm... scrapping and starting over later won't mean that when they try your ilk won't shout from the rooftops that A) the people don't want health care reform, and/or B) that it's impossible to achieve, with the evidence in either case being the current effort agreeing to scrap itself? Assuming, of course, that we don't jump straight to C), the Democrats' failure to pass it with a Congressional majority will be used as a cudgel to help the party with zero interest in even trying to implement reform to remove that majority...

Can you remind me why exactly I should believe that "at some ill-defined, non-assured later date" doesn't mean "never"?

[Jay Jerome]

"They didn't read the Medicare Part D legislation and they're not going to read the legislation currently under discussion. So that can't be making people nervous or suspicious."

Well something is making them nervous or suspicious because they're jumping off the Obama trolley in increasing numbers. We're talking about white Progressives and Democrats who previously supported Obama, but are losing faith in his policies, as noted in a poll released today by the Pew Research Center, which shows Obama's approval ratings dropping, a downward trend based in no small part on growing discontent with his policy agenda, particularly "his proposed healthcare overhaul."

But you're right most people don't read the actual legislation because it is undecipherable. Instead they have to rely on 'experts' to explain what it means -- experts they trust. And guess who they seem to be trusting the most? Not people espousing your view on health care, Turbulence, but the translating experts on the Right at Fox and at hundreds of conservative newspapers and web sites.

Go figure -- more people believe them, then believe the Obamaites.

[Jay Jerome]

"scrapping and starting over later won't mean that when they try your ilk won't shout from the rooftops..."

I'm not an 'ilk' or an "elk" -- but I am a 'Lion' and if you need your eyes fixed I'll try and help... but I can't do anything about your ears, or especially the space between them -- maybe you can try the Rotary for that.

"Can you remind me why exactly I should believe that "at some ill-defined, non-assured later date" doesn't mean "never"? "

Because what you're going to get now (if anything) in this political climate, is a 2nd rate bill that may do more harm than good (per other posts about what may happen if the plan is underfunded)-- and not one with a real single-payer option (probably the Dole kick in option).

But if you're OK with a 2nd rate anything is better than nothing bill... go for it.

[liberal japonicus]

I'm sorry to bring old history, but during the election, Jay Jerome was our primary Hilary concern troll, so I have to take this 'Jane, stop this crazy thing!' advice with the truckload of NaCl.

[C.S.]

I knew he sounded familiar! But you have to admit, it is pretty high quality concern trolling. The whole passive-agressive air to the "if you're OK with a 2nd rate anything is better than nothing bill... go for it" is an especially nice touch, and one you don't often see in concern trolls.

[Shane]

I'm not an 'ilk' or an "elk" -- but I am a 'Lion'

You're alliance?

[Nombrilisme Vide]

I'm not an 'ilk' or an "elk" -- but I am a 'Lion'

Must... resist... slanderous... pun...

(More to the point, what lj said. I too recall aught-eight.)

[mary b]

Want a small part of a larger story?

I am nearly deaf. I cannot hear some things at all, some things I can hear but cannot understand the words. No matter how loud the tee vee, I have to have closed captioning.
All because I had/have no insurance. All I needed were antibiotics. Can't get those without a script, right? And drug dealers don't sell them on the streets. My hearing is now nerve damage that is getting progressively worse with time. Soon, very soon, I will have no hearing at all.
And, I lost my job, Nov, 07. Do you really think anyone will hire me over someone who can hear? Well, I've been looking since then and still haven't got one. AND, you have to be completely deaf to qualify for Social Security Disability.

[cleek]

...so I have to take this 'Jane, stop this crazy thing!' advice with the truckload of NaCl.

i'm taking it with a big slice of pie.

yum!

[Lt. Kije]

Sheer speculation here: please note that the fear of losing insurance does not operate only to keep workers in jobs. It seems likely to me that the current system also keeps a lot of traditional (i.e., dependent) housewives stuck in bad marriages. They may reasonably fear that they could not afford good care or insurance after a divorce, especially if they have pre-existing conditions. So the purveyors of Traditional Family Values (TM), have reason to fear any step towards decoupling health insurance from work.