- checking login information
The Health Policy Cause
628,318 people care about Health Policy
Loading...Health Care Reform? Shout ‘em Down
“Shout ‘em down.” Whether it’s a manufactured, sponsored display or an honest reaction to a particular policy, it is a scare tactic, meant to intimidate and quell true debate.
“I’m sick of the whole health care reform debate.” It’s a growing sentiment, usually coming from those who have a sense of security about their own health and health care insurance policies. “I’ve got mine — you get yours.”
A report from the National Academy of Sciences indicates that health insurance is essential for health and well-being. In areas where the rate of uninsured is particularly high, the financial impact on providers negatively affects the quality and cost of services for the entire community; even those with insurance are not likely to get satisfactory care. The report also says that our current safety nets are not up to the task of preventing avoidable illnesses.
“We can’t afford to reform health care in this economy.” We’ve been talking about the need for reform for decades, and while we keep giving in to the “time is not right” folks, the problem continues to grow, creating more uninsured and underinsured Americans. Those with good insurance are paying the price of inaction through their own premiums and deductibles, or at their employers’ expense — stagnating wages and stifling business.
The deep recession is evidence that we are bound together by our shared economy, and health care is part of it. Even if you are happy with your current health care situation, you are not immune to the negative impact of the problem that surrounds you.
“Shout ‘em down.” No need for facts or an exchange of ideas when you can just shout down those who have ideas contrary to your own. Make up a frightening scenario that will force grandma off to the cemetery and frame it as fact. Then shout it loud and shout it often. Fear and intimidation are powerful weapons.
Passionate disagreement on the issue is one thing. Denying others the chance to speak is another.
From the Petition Site:
Fighting Cancer Requires Health Care Reform
Read more: health care reform, health insurance, health policy, national academy of sciences, politics, scare tactics, shout em down, Underinsured, uninsured
Photo: http://www.sxc.hu/photo/14188
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may
not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
Recent Comments from Causes
good article
Wayne G., you just beat me to it, so a green star is on it's way. By the time I was in 7th grade, I figured…
Very interesting thanks :)
meet our writers
360 comments
+ add your ownIf you want to really frighten them, bring a brain. That'll throw 'em off. The guns are just for folks who hoped in vain that the make-it-bigger spam offers actually worked. When it's still short, and narrow, strap on a 9 mil and it helps.
Hey I have a question I thought I would ask the experts...
I am planning on attending a town hall my Republican senator is hosting and so, what should I do? Should I take an assault rifle with me and shout the pledge of allegiance? Is that how it's done? Maybe a big sign about watering the tree of liberty and a 9mm strapped to my thigh? Any help would be appreciated.
Kent Conrad Contributors:
http://www.dakotapolitics.com/kent_conrad/Campaign_Finance/2007
A bit healthcare industry-heavy, which is a shocker to me. (sarcasm)
Point being: corporate bitches populate both sides of the aisle. It's why voters need to know stuff, not merely think or believe stuff. Corporate lobbies have all the influence they need without mindelss minions doing the legwork for them.
Just a thought.
J
Qualms about government-run health coverage are exactly what Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) co-op sought to alleviate by introducing the co-op proposal, at the behest of the 11 senators tasked with shepherding health reform through the upper chamber...
The idea is that co-ops (whether it's one national co-op, state co-ops, or a national co-op with state affiliates) would serve the same function as government-administered health insurance, in that they'd operate as non-profits and perhaps utilize some added bargaining power or lower payment rates, thus forcing for-profit insurance companies to drive their own costs down, out of sheer economic necessity, once they had to compete with a non-profit that had some consumer cost advantages.
But it would do so specifically without being a government-run plan--and that's the line both Reid and the RNC blurred.
http://politics.theatlantic.com/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read (D-ND) Conrad's FAQ on the co-op proposal: http://conrad.senate.gov/issues/statements/
healthcare/090813_coop_QA.cfm
I had wondered about independently run co-ops. My car & home insurance, USAA, is one and it is a great company, but could this be applied to health care? Then I ran across this article:
Republicans: A Co-op Plan Is Government-Run Health Care
That's what the Republican National Committee is now saying, with some help from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The RNC forwarded a press release/research memo to reporters today claiming that a "'public option' by any other name is still government health care." But does it smell as sweet? Probably not to supporters of a true public option, and it was perhaps out of a desire to alleviate those concerns (and pose a future co-op passage as a White House victory) that Reid deemed co-ops as "some type of public option" in early July--a quote the RNC references prominently.
Neither of them are really right: co-ops would get started with government loans and grants, and the government would come up with the regulations, but they'd be owned by customers. Problem is, it's hard to say it's the same as government-run health care without Republicans coming back at you and saying...the same thing.
Reid's comment was sort of offhand in its phrasing--"call it 'co-op,' call it what you want"--but it's become fodder in the health debate nonetheless...
Hmmm? Still dodging weaving, Sandy?
Meanwhile, "unsubstantiated" is not really apt in characterizing the link you came up with. Forgive me. They're really making blanket claims that improvements are needed, which of course, any system can benefit from. Kudos that they're thinking in those terms.
Plus, I find it telling that in searching for better models to follow they looked to Europe (England, Frand, etc.) and not the US. Indeed, one would be foolish to follow our current model. It sucks, I believe, given what we spend on it.
Still, I'm not seeing anything that's even remotely close to what you fabricated, presumably. (Life-threatening disease not treated due to financial inability of the Canadian government ... a rather unique and bold claim.)
But I'm glad to see you back with tidbits of brilliance, such as joining with Bill whose opinions you seem to think worthy of consideration. Specifically, a certain number of pages without regard for content. Absolutely brilliant! Now we're bringing value to the public date.
Whew!
Jim
William,
No system is perfect, is it ? ...and could stand various degrees & types of improvement. Is President Obama scrapping his requirement that there be a public option in the healthcare renewal plan? hmmm Pelosi & Reed, I understand, won't hear of it. Republicans got the independently owned co-op idea through, but I have to look into that idea further. Off hand sounds like an interesting idea.
Sorry B, this is actually not too bright:
"The first thing we need to do is scrap everything in writing and start over. Lets start with the idea that it can be accomplished on less than 50 pages and be written a manner that does not require the Supreme Court to interpret"
It's called a "Container Bias." 12 steps to a better [insert something]. Are there 12? Or is that a popular container into which ideas are eithe crammed or expanded?
Hell; even God was not immune. Surely there are more than 10 mega no-nos, yeah? But still, Moses did a fair job. Kudos for getting the big guy down to 10, but surely he could have eliminated Adultery in lieu of, heck, I dunknow, torture?
Cheers,
J
Sorry Sandy,
Advoates amking unsubstantiated claims is not fact. But I don't expect you to understand that since you live in the world of the unsubstantiated.
Meanwhile, why the heathier stats?
Best,
Jim
The first thing we need to do is scrap everything in writing and start over. Lets start with the idea that it can be accomplished on less than 50 pages and be written a manner that does not require the Supreme Court to interpret.
Does anyone disagree with that?
I know someone is going to tell me we've been working on this since Adam and it is time to do something. I agree, so let's start with a few simple changes that we can agree on. And I really mean FEW and SIMPLE.
Thanks Sandra. I guess the grass is always greener.
login to add your comment
use your care2 login
add your comment
20