I'm a liberal, born in Europe and raised in the northeastern U.S., now living in the deep South. This often makes me feel as if I'm some kind of space alien, left here when my mothership went back to the homeworld without me. This morning, however, that feeling was especially pronounced when I opened to the opinion page of our capital city newspaper, and found my name appearing as the first two words of an unhinged "Obama is the anti-Christ" rant.
Follow me over the fold for the full dose of the crazy, and my pro-health care reform letter that touched it off:
While there have been a few pro-reform letters in our paper, the majority have, unfortunately, been anti-reform. These tend to contain industry talking points, fear-mongering, and phrases like "wake up America" and "liberals ruining the country". As if that's not bad enough, the online version of the paper is filled with ads from various anti-reform front groups.
Given this climate, I decided to premise my letter on the extent to which the profit-driven insurance industry has succeeded in shaping the public's thinking on this issue. I also noted the lack of competition in the health insurance market, citing the recent analysis by Health Care for America Now (HCAN).
Here is my letter, which was published on August 10:
Insurers set terms of the debate
Among the criticisms of a health-insurance "public option" is that such a government plan would negatively impact the health-care "marketplace."
However, just the fact that we talk about health care as a "marketplace" shows the extent to which the insurance industry has set the terms of this discussion, because when you think about it, this concept makes about as much sense as a "national defense marketplace" or "highway construction marketplace."
Why, in our "nonsocialist" country, do we tolerate so much government involvement in national defense and infrastructure?
Because at some point, we decided these are essential public goods whose delivery cannot be left to the vagaries of the marketplace. And somehow, we also decided (or, more likely, were influenced to decide) that health care does not meet that same threshold.
Of course, most opponents of the public option don’t really believe human health is less important than fixing potholes. More likely, they are responding to pressure from the insurance industry, which sees its profitability threatened by competition from the government.
According to the American Medical Association, 94 percent of U.S. insurance markets meet the Justice Department’s definition of "highly concentrated," meaning one or two companies control the health insurance market in a given area and are thus able to control premium levels, benefit packages and payments to providers.
Analysis of the AMA data by the national grass-roots organization Health Care for America Now, found that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana’s Baton Rouge market share is 67 percent, with UnitedHealth Group Inc. a distant second at 15 percent; these two companies together thus control 82 percent of our local health-insurance market. If you had that kind of power, would you want to give any of it up?
Thus insurance interests run TV commercials warning of a "government bureaucrat" coming between us and our doctor — as if we don’t now routinely see bureaucrats from the profit-driven insurance industry interfering in our care.
Personally, I prefer the nonprofit bureaucrat from the government to the one motivated to increase his company’s profits and help his own job security by looking for reasons to deny my coverage.
It’s really quite stunning how we as a country accept a proposition as morally dubious as "health care for profit."
I think most of us instinctively know there’s something wrong with that, but we’re so used to combing through lists to see if our "provider" is "in-network," or trying to figure out our "co-pay," that we no longer question the present system.
Thus, the insurance companies not only determine our health care but — more disturbingly — have succeeded in influencing how we think, what we expect and what we believe is possible.
Apparently, "Health Care for America Now" is one of those wingnut code words (kind of like ACORN?). Pushing the HCAN button elicited this response today; I'll just let the wingnuttery speak for itself:
Obama, plan backers hate America
[beabea*]'s letter to the editor referenced an organization called Health Care for America Now that is backing the health plan being pushed by President Barack Obama.
In looking at the Web site for the above organization, it is obvious where Obama’s desire for socialization of America emanates.
Organizations tied to and forming the above Health Care of America Now are Acorn, AFL-CIO, MoveOn.org, NAACP, National Council of La Raza, NEA, SEIU and ad nauseam.
These organizations and others too numerous to list here are all for distribution of wealth, having all Americans on welfare, destroying the best health-care system in the world, intruding into every aspect of our lives.
These, like President Obama, hate America and the American way of life. The people who contribute less to the success of this country will reap the rewards off the backs of the decent hardworking people.
At some point in my life I heard there would be an antichrist arising from the East. I firmly believe President Obama is that antichrist.
If we want to lose the respect of being the beacon of hope for the free world, do nothing. If you agree, then go to work now to elect those politicians who want the best for the country, not those wanting to hold on to their power.
Call those currently in Congress and demand they resist this grab for power by an overreaching government.
Unfortunately, this kind of unhinged irrationality is not unheard of in our paper. What does seem to be new though, is this--
Also in today's paper was this letter criticizing the paper for publishing recent "death board" columns by Cal Thomas and Thomas Sowell; here's just a snip of this refreshing bit of rationality:
I usually enjoy the variety of syndicated columnists you print here, but I have to wonder if you even read some of this stuff before you print it; because if you do, I would then have to question whether anyone on your editorial staff can think.
I am referring to the paranoia that has become the norm in conservative circles. On Tuesday, Aug. 4, you printed columns by Cal Thomas and Thomas Sowell, both of whom have run out of anything constructive to add to any debate.
Please allow me to quote:
Thomas wrote, " ... it is only a matter of conditioning before ... involuntary snuffing out of life on the other end will be tolerated and, indeed, promoted as the state seeks new ways to cut expenses."
Sowell wrote, " ... do not be surprised when life and death decisions about you or your family are taken out of your hands — and out of the hands of your doctor — and transferred to bureaucrats in Washington."
Think, for once, about this paranoid fantasy.
The opinion page editors actually headlined this letter with "Columns spin paranoid fantasy"!
And then there was this response to a recently published anti-health reform letter that had been written by a dentist (our paper identifies LTE's by the writer's name, occupation, and city):
...I say his letter is typical of people who have a vested interest in lower taxes and a complete disregard for those who do not have health insurance.
His letter is typical of writers who merely parrot Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck. They never have an original thought of their own.
It's unusual to see two letters of this type in the same week, let alone the same day. Is this a sign of the anti-teabagger backlash? It's too early to say, but I'll certainly be watching the letters page to see how this plays out.
Even if reading letters from the local citizenry often makes me feel like a space alien. But at least today, I see signs of a few others out there besides just me and my handful of liberal friends.
*Note: While writing this diary, I felt rather torn about whether or not to provide links to the actual letters. I ended up deciding not to, since by doing so, I would be outing myself. For the time being, I'd rather preserve the anonymity of my nom de blog, but I'd welcome comments on this issue.