Although I stayed up last night to watch the historic vote on health care, I have to admit that this bill was not what I wanted it to be. I get it – politics is the art of the possible – but that doesn’t mean that I can’t be disappointed. Like many others, I support a public option, which was not a part of this legislation.
More than anything, though, I remain disappointed in what passes for conversation these days. You know, it’s OK to be against the bill, but is it really necessary to resort to using racial epithets and anti-gay chants, or yelling “baby killer” at a fellow member of Congress? As I watched the coverage on CSPAN last night and kept up on Twitter, I was surprised that people that I generally consider rational seemed to go off the deep end, personally attacking various people – so much so, that I unfollowed some folks last night.
One of the many Republican candidates in the 2nd CD vying for the right to attempt to unseat Glenn Nye took an ungentlemanly – and quite unnecessary – shot at Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Am I mad at Nye for his vote? You betcha! Did your attack on Pelosi endear you to me? Nope.
I can no longer read the comments on PilotOnline. They are so full of venom and outright lies that I’ve begun to wonder if the only people with computer access are those watching Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Shouting the loudest doesn’t mean that you are right – only that you have a big mouth.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
I suspect I’m not alone in withdrawing from “conversations” with people like these.
At the end of the day, the president will sign this legislation. Despite arguments to the contrary, the sun will still rise, and the world won’t come to an end.
UPDATE: At least one conservative understands what I’m getting at.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Dear Ms. Paige,
Politics is very personal, but that doesn’t excuse bad manners, and worse–such as the spitting, hate-mongering, and name-calling that occurred over the weekend at the Capitol building against Congressman John Lewis and others. The lack of civility was striking throughout this process, and much of the blame must be laid at the feet of the talk-show pundits whose business thrives on whipping people up. I don’t believe people like Beck and Limbaugh even have an honest point-of-view. They are happy when Dems are down, and they are happy when Reps are down–because either way–their listeners call in. They’re opportunists–like George Wallace back in the (bad) old days–who wasn’t even all that right-wing until he saw that particular niche wasn’t being held by anyone–so he moved in since it was the way he could get the most media attention.
Ms. Paige, I so appreciate your blog and tweets–they are helping me be more informed about what’s happening in Virginia–local politics is probably what affects me and my family the most. Thank you, and keep up the good work.
We are also largely disengaging from conversations with people like yourself. There seems little point anymore in such discussions since we have nothing in common and no basis for debate.
The future of America is very likely no longer something that will be decided by words.
If you’re incapable of civil conversation with those you don’t agree with, just how would you suggest deciding the issue?
Mollie,
Neither side is capable of a meaningful conversation on this issue and several other issues that will be center to legislation that the government will attempt to pass into law in the coming months.
Civil or ranting, it doesn’t matter since there’s no longer enough commonality of interests and beliefs to allow for discussion or debate.
These things will be – like ObamaCare – initially decided by fiat and later likely overturned by either later fiat or violence.
To paraphrase Al Gore, the debate is over, the fighting will now commence.
Dude. Your mom is going to be so mad when she finds out what you’ve been posting.
LOL
My mother is nearing 80, a retired US Marine Major, and believes as I do.
Neither her or I are particularly happy about what is coming, but we can see it happening.
Can you help me understand the reasoning for invoking violence and civil uprising because more people will have health insurance and insurance companies won’t be able to deny coverage as easily?
It just seems an asymmetrical reaction.
Invoking? I merely state what I think will be.
Congress directly went against the will of the majority of the American, both in passing this bill and in HOW they passed it. In doing so they proved that they and Obama don’t listen and intend to rule as they see fit.
Hence, here’s no room for- or purpose in debating the issues anymore. That will likely lead to violence because there is – or will be – no other recourse.
Thank you, Barbara, but the Constitution only gives Congress the power “to pay the debts and provide for the general welfare of the United States.” It does not give Congress the power to pay my personal debts nor to provide for my personal welfare.
Citation, please.
You need a citation? THE CONSTITUTION!
I can’t find that quote anywhere in the US Constitution.
If you’re going to jump up and down on the Constitution (and just ignore the entirety of controlling US jurisprudence on the matter), you should at least get the quotes right.
That would be the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Since the power to pay personal debts or provide for personal welfare, that power is reserved to the States or the people.
Who is Barbara?
Boxer. Didn’t she write in a bunch of nonsesne for CA?
No reason for violence, but civil protest, certainly. Let’s look at an example. A young person buys the bare minimum of health care, as required, or chooses to simply pay the penalty, whichever is cheaper. He contracts cancer, then goes and buys an expensive plan that will cover all of the expenses for his cancer. When his cancer is cured, he goes back to the cheap option again.
So there will be civil protests and potential violence because a young man gets health care for his cancer? Oh, thanks, I get it now.
When one takes what he has not earned, we call it “stealing.” You call it “fair.”
When health insurance companies cut off people’s “insurance” because they have cancer, I call that stealing. When an individual pays for, and gets, the health care they were promised by the insurance companies, I call that fair.
I agree. Health insurance should be treated as car insurance and home-owners insurance are. If a condition is diagnosed while that insurance is in force, then that insurance is responsible for coverage regardless of whether the insured keeps that policy. That will prevent dropped coverage AND the hiking of premiums to the point that they are unaffordable. In either case, the insurance company would not be getting the premiums any more, but would STILL be liable for the coverage.
On the other hand, if you choose not to get insurance, and contract cancer, then no-one else should be forced to pay for it. That was YOUR choice and YOU must accept the consequences of that choice.
“Despite arguments to the contrary, the sun will still rise, and the world won’t come to an end.”
Good words to remember when, ultimately, the pendulum swings the other way and Republicans are a majority party again.
I wonder if sentiments expressed on this blog will be the same when that time comes.
In fact, perhaps we can peruse some postings and comments from during the General Assembly session to see if that’s how folks were treating the budget cuts, etc.
No offense intended to my good friend and colleague, Ms. Paige, but it’s that dismissive aarogance that is exactly what has folks on the right, to put it mildly, annoyed.
For years, conservatives put up with protest after protest, and then the moment conservatives take a stand against government overstretch and a rejection of basic political freedoms and the free market, suddenly we’re the crazies?
There are a lot of Americans who are disgusted at the state of our government and how policy is crafted. It would have been nice to have had a legitimate debate on healthcare (because it does need reform), rather then taking a “let them eat cake” attitude.
It would be wise to listen to the dismay of conservatives and understand it, attempting to come to some sort of concensus through mutual dialogue, instead of fomenting the anger and shutting people out with dismissive commentary.
Good Point, JR. I wonder how many times I read the word “draconian” in the past month.
I think you’ll need an audience of goldfish, if you want that taken seriously. Anyone else who has been paying attention during the past decade? Knows what a sucker’s game that is.
Republicans made their own bed of hyperbole, anger, and doom. It’s not on us to make it more comfortable for them.
Spoken like a guy who HAS government health care, JR.
I’m not sure where you get “dismissive arrogance” from, JR. That’s called reading something that wasn’t there. Perhaps you missed the part where I said I wasn’t happy with the bill?
What used to be common sense rules:
1. Don’t raise taxes in a recession.
2. Don’t spend money you don’t have.
3. Requiring employers to cover all employees will lead to fewer employees.
4. When entitlement programs are going bankrupt ( social security, medicare, medicaid ), don’t add another entitlement before you fix the others.
This bill violates all of these rules. Election day can’t get here fast enough.
The bill does not violate all of those rules –
1. Obama has reduced taxes, not raised them. We are paying less now than we were a year ago. This bill will only increase the tax burden of those individuals making $200,000 or more per year, or those employees receiving health care coverage valued at over $27,500 per year. The rest of us would see no increase in our taxes and some of us (individuals making $44,000 or less and families making $88,000 or less) would receive subsidies to buy insurance in the market if our employers did not offer it.
2. We can argue about the validity of the CBO’s numbers another time, but according to their calculations we’d see a significant reduction in the national debt with this bill – in other words, we’ll be saving money.
3. Only employers with 50 or more employees would see any regulation on healthcare spending with this bill. Employers can choose not to cover employees, but if even one employee receives a subsidy for insurance from the government the company could be fined $2,000 for every full-time employee. Employers could choose to provide insurance, choose not to and simply pay the fine, choose to raise salaries, or choose to subsidize the insurance purchases of their lowest paid employees to avoid the fine. There is no requirement to cover all employees.
4. I’ve seen all sorts of variations on this theme – one says that these programs will go bust any day, another says it’ll go bust in 70 years. I don’t know what to believe.
I’ve found the Christian Science Monitor’s series “Healthcare Reform Bill 101” useful for digging up the truth behind the bill.
Where were all of you when George W. was running us deeper and deeper in debt, oh yea, you were busy cashing your rebate checks. THAT is why we are in debt. We need to stop being so distructive and start working together. When this legislation proves to help matters I hope you will all admit you were wrong. Also, turn off Rush and start listening to something positive for a change! YES I SAID CHANGE!!!
Here’s a helpful video to go with the post.
I often feel frustrated and hate the things I see going on around me–like the endless war started by Bush, like the rich getting richer and the middle class getting squeezed, like racism, public schools not getting funded . . . so you stay engaged–you educate yourself as to how you can make a difference, you join productive groups (and stay away from those that seem like they are spewing hatred). You don’t threaten violence, you don’t ridicule the people you don’t agree with–you don’t lose the best part of yourself.
The article you linked to points out that the GOP made a conscious strategic decision not to compromise in any way with the Obama administration. I recognize this as true because I went to hear Mitch McConnell speak at the National Press Club in Jan 2009, the week after the inauguration–and he was adamant in his refusal to give in any way to what he obviously felt was the “opposition”. The GOP never had any intention of being bipartisan–never, never never! So they can blame it all on Obama if he should falter. But tell me–how does that help? Particularly when you are following the most radical voices in your party down the road to irrelevance and defeat. You’ve painted yourself into a corner. And that attitude filters down to people like Jonolan who obviously is in a very bad place and is feeling pretty hopeless.
When you realize that your travelling companions are on that road paved with good intentions, and you know where it leads, do you compromise and go down that road at a slower pace, or do you dig in your heels?
To Viv and all:
No one is saying that there are not needed reforms in health care & insurance. I don’t think anyone would not agree with some points that have been espoused by the Obama Admin as the positive points of the legislation. Preexisting conditions etc.
The problem is with all of the other things in the legislation, and the taking away of freedom to choose. This reform should have been tackled in smaller bills to address specific issues. I won’t mention the special deals with some states & interest groups to buy some member’s votes-especially in California just to give farmers 25% of the water for the San Joaquim vally. Lots of horse trading went on.
In page 1004, is required implantation of microchips with medical records. I can’t say all of the issues with the bill that folks won’t like, but it is a playground of material for the 2010 Congressional campaigns,the Democrats need to be able to defend these. I am not sure they will be able to.
Basically, many are looking upon this is more government control over something private & personal. I talked to another Sorensen Institute classmate this last weekend that was so frustrated with buying health policies as a self employed that all she wants is a single payor system. I am married to a self employed spouse, so I stay employed by a corporation instead of going after the better money in consulting work for my skillset to cover a self employed spouse-no other reason to avoid this.
I honestly believe this bill is not the answer to what we are seeking as a resolution to the complex problem of high cost health care, and covering uninsured. It penalizes the majority to help the lessor number of people.
Let’s see how health care companies stock fares in the next week, and you will be able to see the effects on small busines and the economy.
The Democrat’s selling point of lowering of deficit is not real in my mind based on CBO. Many other programs have not been estimated or forcasted as they ended up, so the CBO is moot.
Everyone needs to take the emotions out, and read the bill in it’s entirety that is signed.
This is a lie.
There are only 906 pages!
Click to access getdoc.cgi
You might want to read the bill too. I see nothing in there that takes away our freedom of choice. In fact, what I see are broader choices for most of us. More companies will be allowed to compete for your healthcare dollars – you might even find that that you’re able to take that consulting gig and give up the corporate job.
I don’t agree with the bill or the tactics used, but KUDOS to OBAMA! I am impressed that he was accomplish something that many other leaders have failed at. While I’m on the other side of the political aisle, I am always proud and impressed when he accomplishes great things.
You tout that a conservative supports you. Except that Frum is wrong.
Republicans made no deals because it was clear that 1)the Democrats were NOT going to be bi-partisan. 2) Bipartisanship to the Democrats means “do it my way.”
Reid and Pelosi LOCKED the door and kept them out of the room. The “lack of bipartisanship” was not only on the side of the GOP.
The incivility happens because the representatives seem to care more about party than about their constituents. There are Democrats and Republicans in the Tea Party. Any alleged racial slurs and spitting IS inexcusable. But the anger is real. And it keeps getting discounted as incivility.
Many are getting tire of “civil discourse” because ITS ALL BEEN SAID. On both sides. And the party in power have no intention of compromising. They’ve been wanting to pass this disaster since Ted Roosevelt. Unlike yourself, many liberal will not debate or even entertain the merits of the conservative argument.
The violence will not be because someone with cancer gets treatment. The violence will happen when someone that objects to being forced buy insurance, is fined, refused to pay said fine, is imprisoned. And the violence will start on the side of the government by the imprisonment of someone that objects to the poll tax of buying mandatory insurance in order to live in America.
The health care bill is not about helping people. Its about controlling people. The bill will destroy the health insurance and medical industry, forcing the government to save it, AGAIN, from the evil private medical industry. Single payer, government health care will be the result.
The anger is also about the overreaching control of the financial markets and banks, THE SPENDING, the undo influence of the unions, THE SPENDING, the upcoming seizure of student loan programs, THE SPENDING, the upcoming amnesty for illegals, etc.
There is hyperbole and anger on both sides. But the press only decrys “right wing anger.” Left wing anger seems to always be called, “concern”.
Agreed. One conservative gets it. Very cogent article. We Republicans slit our own throats om this one.