Many of you know I show dogs, Boston Terriers to be exact. Dog show people outside of the deep blue states tend to be politically conservative even if it isn't in their best interests to be so.
Today I received an e-mail on one of the many dog show related e-mail lists to which I subscribe ranting about Obama and his appearance in Wisconsin today complaining about his advocating for health care reform, his stance on women's reproductive rights, and for some protesters being ejected. I won't post her note here because it is copyrighted by the list owner, but I am posting my reply to her and the amen chorus that sprouted up below the fold:
Okay, before this topic gets shut down for being OT, a few words from someone who apparently is in the political minority on this list and who doesn't spend all day watching the Republican Propaganda Channel a.k.a. Fox News. I imagine most of you have stopped reading by this time, but for those who might have a more open mind, I offer the following:
The American People have spoken and Obama was elected president winning the majority of electoral college votes in what has been called by some a landslide. Not only that but Democrats have gained nearly overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress and from the looks of things, that's probably going to continue for a while. As George W. Bush famously said, "Elections have consequences." I have a question - why are the same people who said a year ago criticizing the president was unpatriotic and tantamount to treason now criticizing the president? Why has at least one Republican governor openly spoken about his state seceding from the union? I don't recall any Democratic governor doing anything like that. I'll give y'all a hint: Patriots don't go on television and openly talk about the possibility of seceding from the union even if they don't mean it.
Re: "Tearing down what we already have in place" - What Obama wants to change isn't working and it's unsustainable. It needs to be reformed to a more equitable and more importantly, sustainable system. Otherwise there will be no way future generations will be able to support themselves and we will end up in a feudal system where there are only the very wealthy and the very poor with no middle class, with the greatest majority of people being poor. Do you want future generations of your family to live in poverty???
To those who have recently become deficit hawks, where were you when Bush didn't meet a spending bill he didn't like? Where were you when Bush squandered the surplus and started deficit spending? Where were you when Cheney said "Reagan proved deficits don't matter?" Where were you when funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were intentionally left out of the budget in order to hide their true costs? Why is it now all of a sudden you've become deficit hawks after eight years of Republicans spending like drunken sailors? In case you haven't noticed, we're in the midst of a financial crisis that could have been easily avoided had sound economic and financial policies been in place for the past eight years. Obama has a huge mess in front of him he inherited from Bush (the recession started in late '07 well before Obama took office so you can't blame it on Obama) and the only entity possibly with enough money to keep things from making the Great Depression look like a cakewalk is the Government. Had Bush built on the surplus he inherited instead of squandering it on tax cuts benefiting the wealthy, we wouldn't be deficit spending right now, but we have to in order to keep our economy from spiraling down the toilet.
Re: "Socialized Medicine" - We already have socialized medicine in this country. It's called Medicare. If you're over 65 and against socialized medicine then you should de-enroll yourself from this program. The Medicare program, like Social Security (also bright to you by liberals) is a "pay as you go" system. I.e. the people paying taxes today are the ones paying the bills today. It's not a savings account, and many of those who currently enjoy Medicare benefits pay less in taxes than the average middle class American as they are living off of Social Security and/orr their post tax savings. In other words if you're over 65 and you've been to the doctor, those of us who are paying taxes on middle class incomes are paying most of your medical expenses. The only "out of pocket" money you pay are prescription drugs when you hit the ill conceived "donut hole" and premiums for Medicare supplemental insurance, which covers the portion Medicare doesn't cover.
Rationing? We already have it as those who cannot afford health care can't get it and insurance companies routinely decline to approve payment for necessary medical treatment (a.k.a. death by spreadsheet). That certainly cuts down the number of people in the waiting rooms. Waiting lists? Yup, got those too. I don't even bother trying to go to my regular doctor when I have something acute. I just go to the urgent care clinic and take care of it right there because by the time I get in to see my regular doc in a few weeks I could already be in the hospital with a raging infection that could have been prevented through a course of oral antibiotics or the problem resolved on its own by running its course or in some cases death.
I am a small business owner. I cannot get health insurance at any price due to the fact I've had minor outpatient surgery in the past 10 years and my Body Mass Index is too high. Even if I lost enough weight so I wouldn't be considered heavy, my BMI is still too high. What am I supposed to do if I get a catastrophic illness?
Basic health care in this country needs to return to it's altruistic not-for-profit roots. I'm all in favor of capitalism but there are a small number of things that should not be left up to the market and health care is one of them because for profit companies are always going to put profits first before anything else.
Re: "Abortion" - I am not a woman, however I support a woman's right to control her fertility and have dominion over her own body. People who are against abortion (I'm sorry, but pro-life is not the correct term) like to frame the argument in terms that make people think women casually make the decision whether to abort or not like they decide what clothes they're going to wear or whether or not they're going to shop at Target or Wal Mart as if it's their primary means of birth control. There may be a very small number of women out there who are like that, but given how expensive the procedure is (it's almost never covered by insurance unless deemed medically necessary), it's more likely to be wealthy people than the poor who treat it as a casual decision. The way to reduce abortion is to reduce unwanted pregnancy, which is done through education. Ironically enough many of those who are against abortion are also against educating women in order to help them avoid getting pregnant or allow women any means to control their own fertility. It's been proved "abstinence only" education does not work, and telling women it's their fault when they get pregnant and can't care for the child isn't the answer. If you want to end abortion, end unwanted pregnancy.
Re: "Protesters" - You can thank George W. Bush for establishing that precedent. As I recall it was his administration who implemented policies that didn't allow people who disagreed with him to come to his speeches. Instead they established "Free Speech Zones" that were often so far away from the venue as to be totally useless. Why is it OK for Bush to do that kind of thing but not Obama, and if you don't think it was OK when Bush was doing it, why weren't you posting your disagreement here like you are now?
I'm a gay man. As such I'm a first class taxpayer and a second class citizen. I pay more in taxes than my married peers because I am not allowed the social, legal, tax benefits of being able to marry the person I love. Should I work for an employer who offers domestic partner benefits, I have to pay additional taxes on the imputed income from my employer's contribution to my premiums. Married people do not have to pay imputed income taxes on benefits extended to their spouses. I also cannot claim my partner as a dependent if he stays at home unlike married heterosexuals can should they choose for one of them to not be employed outside the home.
I could go on, but I think I've ranted enough. The people have spoken. Obama has approval ratings far above what Bush had at this stage of his presidency. Nothing is being rammed down your throats.