Jimmy Carter may be on to something when he played the race card the other day, suggesting that Joe Wilson's "you lie" outburst and other criticism is race-based. But then again, maybe he's wrong.
It's rarely about just race. America is too complex to be explained so simply. If it were just about race, Clinton wouldn't have had such a rough go. Notwitstanding being named the "first Black president", he was a white guy. Clinton survived because he knew how to play the game better than the right-wingers who were out to get him.
John Kerry, about as white as they come and rich to-boot, wasn't quite so adept. The swiftboaters sunk his candidacy.
Carter, another white dude, faced attacks on both sides of the political aisle.
But political affiliation can't explain it all. It can't explain why only 5 of the 22 children in my 4th grade daughter's class were permitted to watch the president's pep talk to the nation's school children. Political affiliation can't fully explain why so many people who would benefit from health care reform have rejected reform because it is proposed by Obama. What else explains why death threats aimed at Obama have skyrocketed?
Add to the mix the non-stop race baiting by Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Video cameras catch black school children laughing while white kids are attacked. According to Rush, that's Obama's America. What? Really? Like the dozens of racially motivated events in the Before-Obama era that any moderately informed person could list off the top of their head? Was that Bush's America or Reagan's America?
I never thought I'd live to see a Black president in theWhite House. Will I live long enough to see the country have an honest dialog on race?
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Random thoughts on health care
I admit it: I don't understand most of those who oppose health care reform. Here are my random thoughts on the topic.
1. Every person who shows up in the ER ready to deliver a baby, or in need of an appendectomy, or dropping pints of blood, or having symptoms of any other medical emergency will receive care, regardless of ability to pay, citizenship status, or anything else. That's the law. There's a cost to that care, which we all absorb in one way or another. Health care reform that aims to create a more efficient system for providing preventative care and providing services more efficiently makes utmost sense.
2. If I didn't have employer-sponsored health insurance, I could barely afford to pay for a private plan that would provide substantially less coverage. If I lost my job, paying the COBRA premium would be a stretch. We are (I think) in at least the top 10% of earners. Are the people who are so vociferously protesting more able to pay? Or do they expect that they will have employer-sponsored insurance. Reality check: EAW, or for laypeople, employment at will. Those without a contract are subject to being terminated at any time. Bye-bye health insurance. Nothing requires an employer to provide health insurance.
3. We like to proclaim that we are a Christian nation (or in more inclusive moments) a Judeo-Christian nation. Let's assume that's a true statement. What's our proof? How do we treat the weakest, neediest people in our nation? What's that parable about the Good Samaritan? Or maybe the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes?
4. The richest nation in the world. The most powerful nation on earth. The best nation--love it or leave it. Pile on the superlatives. But whichever superlative you choose, the fact is the "most-est" nation doesn't provide a means for basic health care for all its citizesns. Lots of "lesser" nations somehow manage to do it.
5. Poor insurance companies; they can't compete if health reform includes a public option. What??? Since when have insurance companies been the poster children for protectionist policies. I thought we welcomed competition. Private schools manage to compete with public schools. Cities like New York, Chicago, and Atlanta haven't seen a wholesale loss of car dealers notwithstanding well-developed and utilized public transportation systems. FedEx and UPS seem to do quite fine, notwithstaning a mandated USPS monopoly. I suppose a public option might mean that private insurance companies might have to come up with innovative ways to compete, but if we're the best in the world, seems like they should welcome the challenge.
6. Rationing? The complaint is that health care reform will result in rationing? So what do insurance companies do if not ration? All insurance companies are fundamentally the same: collect premiums and limit the payment of claims, all in a quest for profit. Need to improve the bottom line? Easy! Simply deny or delay pre-treatment approvals for any number of specious reasons--not medically necessary, experimental, insufficient documentation, not a covered benefit, yada, yada, yada. Rationing by any other name. So who's the better gate-keeper? A profit-motivated company or the government? Neither makes me feel good, but rationing is a reality, and at least the government doesn't have a history of paying million-dollar bonuses to top executives.
I don't know that the current proposal is the best that we can do, but I do believe we have some of the best and brightest minds. I also believe that something has gotta give.
1. Every person who shows up in the ER ready to deliver a baby, or in need of an appendectomy, or dropping pints of blood, or having symptoms of any other medical emergency will receive care, regardless of ability to pay, citizenship status, or anything else. That's the law. There's a cost to that care, which we all absorb in one way or another. Health care reform that aims to create a more efficient system for providing preventative care and providing services more efficiently makes utmost sense.
2. If I didn't have employer-sponsored health insurance, I could barely afford to pay for a private plan that would provide substantially less coverage. If I lost my job, paying the COBRA premium would be a stretch. We are (I think) in at least the top 10% of earners. Are the people who are so vociferously protesting more able to pay? Or do they expect that they will have employer-sponsored insurance. Reality check: EAW, or for laypeople, employment at will. Those without a contract are subject to being terminated at any time. Bye-bye health insurance. Nothing requires an employer to provide health insurance.
3. We like to proclaim that we are a Christian nation (or in more inclusive moments) a Judeo-Christian nation. Let's assume that's a true statement. What's our proof? How do we treat the weakest, neediest people in our nation? What's that parable about the Good Samaritan? Or maybe the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes?
4. The richest nation in the world. The most powerful nation on earth. The best nation--love it or leave it. Pile on the superlatives. But whichever superlative you choose, the fact is the "most-est" nation doesn't provide a means for basic health care for all its citizesns. Lots of "lesser" nations somehow manage to do it.
5. Poor insurance companies; they can't compete if health reform includes a public option. What??? Since when have insurance companies been the poster children for protectionist policies. I thought we welcomed competition. Private schools manage to compete with public schools. Cities like New York, Chicago, and Atlanta haven't seen a wholesale loss of car dealers notwithstanding well-developed and utilized public transportation systems. FedEx and UPS seem to do quite fine, notwithstaning a mandated USPS monopoly. I suppose a public option might mean that private insurance companies might have to come up with innovative ways to compete, but if we're the best in the world, seems like they should welcome the challenge.
6. Rationing? The complaint is that health care reform will result in rationing? So what do insurance companies do if not ration? All insurance companies are fundamentally the same: collect premiums and limit the payment of claims, all in a quest for profit. Need to improve the bottom line? Easy! Simply deny or delay pre-treatment approvals for any number of specious reasons--not medically necessary, experimental, insufficient documentation, not a covered benefit, yada, yada, yada. Rationing by any other name. So who's the better gate-keeper? A profit-motivated company or the government? Neither makes me feel good, but rationing is a reality, and at least the government doesn't have a history of paying million-dollar bonuses to top executives.
I don't know that the current proposal is the best that we can do, but I do believe we have some of the best and brightest minds. I also believe that something has gotta give.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
A Proportionate Response
Yesterday, the Boulder DA formally exonerated them for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey and apologized to them for the cloud of suspicion that has hung over them since her death. The DNA says it wasn't them. Fine. It's always good when a DA does the right thing.
The story made the national news last night and the mornng news shows this morning. Why is this such big news? I'm sure the Ramseys did suffer because of the investigation and the whisper campaign that followed. It is tragic that Patsy Ramsey died, still under suspicion of having murdered her daughter.
But . . .they were never charged; they were never arrested; no one was arraigned; no one was tried; no one was wrongly convicted; and no one spent a single day in jail or in prison.
Consider all of the exonerations that have occurred across the nation, many involving black men. These individuals not only suffered a wrongful conviction, they lost years of their liberty for which there is no remedy. They missed the birthdays of children and the funerals of parents. And of course, no one knows how many individuals may have died in prison--or been executed--having been convicted of crimes they did not commit.
So yeah, I do feel for the Ramseys. They lost their daughter and the murderer is still out there. But, let's not get carried away.
The story made the national news last night and the mornng news shows this morning. Why is this such big news? I'm sure the Ramseys did suffer because of the investigation and the whisper campaign that followed. It is tragic that Patsy Ramsey died, still under suspicion of having murdered her daughter.
But . . .they were never charged; they were never arrested; no one was arraigned; no one was tried; no one was wrongly convicted; and no one spent a single day in jail or in prison.
Consider all of the exonerations that have occurred across the nation, many involving black men. These individuals not only suffered a wrongful conviction, they lost years of their liberty for which there is no remedy. They missed the birthdays of children and the funerals of parents. And of course, no one knows how many individuals may have died in prison--or been executed--having been convicted of crimes they did not commit.
So yeah, I do feel for the Ramseys. They lost their daughter and the murderer is still out there. But, let's not get carried away.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
One Drop
If Barack Obama wins the Presidency, he will be the 44th white President of the United States. He will also be the first black President, and that is what has been the focus. It certainly makes a more compelling story to treat him as black, and I'm personally happy that there's lots of positive press for a black man. But does it not suggest that we are still of the mind that anything other than 100% white makes one, well, not white. And for that reason, some small percentage of the white voting public will not vote for him although his mother looks pretty much like theirs. Odd irony.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Wouldn't want to be her
Can you say caught between the devel and the deep blue sea? As it stands, only a miracle will save Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. So what's the next step for her? I'm assuming that her amibition to be president won't die with her campaign.
With that in mind, if Mrs. Clinton plays the good little former candidate and forcefully campaigns for Obama, he might just win. That ain't necessarily good news for Mrs. Clinton, because barring a horrendous first term, Obama, the incumbent, will be the Democratic nominee for 2012. In other words, helping Obama win will sink her next best chance to become President; she'll have to wait until 2016 when her age will be an issue.
On the other hand, if she fails to campaign or it's clear that her heart isn't in it, the party faithful are like to blame her if Obama loses, particuarly if he loses by a close margin such that her assistance could have been a true game-changer. She can wave good-bye to her chances in 2012. She might not become a pariah, but I doubt there'll be a rush to annoint her the 2012 candidate. The Obamaites won't forget and will punish her for her lack of support.
It's a no-win situation, as I see it. To borrow from Laurel and Hardy, this is a fine mess she's gotten herself into.
With that in mind, if Mrs. Clinton plays the good little former candidate and forcefully campaigns for Obama, he might just win. That ain't necessarily good news for Mrs. Clinton, because barring a horrendous first term, Obama, the incumbent, will be the Democratic nominee for 2012. In other words, helping Obama win will sink her next best chance to become President; she'll have to wait until 2016 when her age will be an issue.
On the other hand, if she fails to campaign or it's clear that her heart isn't in it, the party faithful are like to blame her if Obama loses, particuarly if he loses by a close margin such that her assistance could have been a true game-changer. She can wave good-bye to her chances in 2012. She might not become a pariah, but I doubt there'll be a rush to annoint her the 2012 candidate. The Obamaites won't forget and will punish her for her lack of support.
It's a no-win situation, as I see it. To borrow from Laurel and Hardy, this is a fine mess she's gotten herself into.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Politically correct on age?
Remember Omarosa from The Apprentice? Remember the controversy she created over another another competitor's statement about "the pot calling the kettle black?" "It's racist!" she exclaimed
Her claim was ridiculous, and it made her look bad to press such an idiotic claim. And there were plenty willing to tell her as much. Such claims as Omarosa made often bring out those who rail against "political correctness" and accuse blacks of being hypersensitive.
I hope that those same critics will rail against John McCain in the same way. Didn't McCain just play the age card? After all, when Obama suggested that McCain had "lost his bearings" in response to McCain's statements about Hamas wanting Obama for president.
I have only one college degree and one professional degree, and I'm well into middle age, so I might be a little slow on the uptake, but exactly where is the ageism in that? I suppose you could say that the statement suggests senility, which one associates with age, but to claim ageism is a bit of a stretch.
Come on, John. Is that the best you can do? But if you want to make such spurious claims, you can start writing your concesesion speecch now. But until then, all you other folks had better watch what you say.
Her claim was ridiculous, and it made her look bad to press such an idiotic claim. And there were plenty willing to tell her as much. Such claims as Omarosa made often bring out those who rail against "political correctness" and accuse blacks of being hypersensitive.
I hope that those same critics will rail against John McCain in the same way. Didn't McCain just play the age card? After all, when Obama suggested that McCain had "lost his bearings" in response to McCain's statements about Hamas wanting Obama for president.
I have only one college degree and one professional degree, and I'm well into middle age, so I might be a little slow on the uptake, but exactly where is the ageism in that? I suppose you could say that the statement suggests senility, which one associates with age, but to claim ageism is a bit of a stretch.
Come on, John. Is that the best you can do? But if you want to make such spurious claims, you can start writing your concesesion speecch now. But until then, all you other folks had better watch what you say.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Hillary Clinton, President of Hard-working whites only?
Hillary Clinton keeps making the pitch that Barack Obama can't draw the vote of working-class whites like she can, and that's what makes her the stronger candidate against McCain. Excuse me? Did I miss something?
The Democratic candidate will need the support of working class whites, but that's not all. Lest Mrs Clinton forget, the candidate will need the vote of African-Americans of all income and educational levels. That candidate will also need the votes of young voters, including first-time voters. In other words, the candidate will need broad support, which is fitting since that person will have a darn good shot at becoming the President of theUnited States. The same United States that, as cliche-ish as it sounds, is a great melting pot.
When I survey the results from the past few months, it is Obama that has generated excitement among a broad spectrum of voters.
The Democratic candidate will need the support of working class whites, but that's not all. Lest Mrs Clinton forget, the candidate will need the vote of African-Americans of all income and educational levels. That candidate will also need the votes of young voters, including first-time voters. In other words, the candidate will need broad support, which is fitting since that person will have a darn good shot at becoming the President of theUnited States. The same United States that, as cliche-ish as it sounds, is a great melting pot.
When I survey the results from the past few months, it is Obama that has generated excitement among a broad spectrum of voters.
To the extent that Hillary believes she can somehow pull out the nomination by focusing on one demographic, she'd better remember that she risks alienating the others. I don't expect this to become relevant because I don't expect Hillary to be the nominee. But if she does, she had better not assume that she can pander to one group and write the others off or take them for granted.
We have spent the last 8 years with a President who thinks that only certain groups matter. He is our President in name only, but theirs in reality.
Hillary's latest tact is one likely borne of desperation, but don't make the mistake of failing to appeal to all of us. That's what she should have been doing from the outset, and then maybe she would not have found herself in such a precarious position.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
