There is no doubt that the public debate (if you can call it a debate) on health care reform has been a difficult one. If any of you have had the guts to open your mouths in front of friends, family, and/or strangers about this issue, I'm sure you have had to defend yourself and your ideals.
Over the past few months, I have learned great lessons about how to have constructive conversations with those from across the aisle. Below the fold is a transcript of one conversation whereby one-of-them sees the light and accepts the importance of the public option as a bona fide method to facilitate competition among insurers. I hope that lessons can be learned from this dialogue so that you are all more successful when you must reason with the unreasonable...
I apologize for the length of the following transcript, but it is necessary so that you understand the trajectory of the conversation. I don't want to debate this community regarding the various comments I made conciliating with my conservative counterparts as I think those conciliations were important to keep the conversation going. These posts continued for approximately 1 month on a very popular social networking site between myself (Me), my sister (Sis), conservative #1 (John), conservative #2 (Alan), and a foreign exchange student I had when I was in 4th grade (Danish friend).
As a side-note, this conversation was deleted by the utilized social networking site presumably because of its political nature. We tested this hypothesis by reposting, and the site deleted it again and again. Such censorship of both left and right-wing political speech has been reported previously.
It begins with a diatribe against Socialism by John...
John: Take away any reward for thinking, striving, and achieving and eventually the full socialist movement will take over. After all, it worked out so well for the U.S.S.R. Then our border control talks will be of how to keep people in our country, rather than out. Socialism is a good idea until the other guy runs out of money! Then the state of the entire nation lives a sub-standard live with no will or desire to make it any better. "If I am not willing to work for it, then you shouldn't have it either!" . . . . sad, sad, sad!
Sis: @John, The fact is that there are many of us out there that are working just as hard as you are and don't have a beautiful two car garage and health plan to show for it. AND some of us need a HAND UP rather than a hand out. Some regrettable past choices (and I know our past's are similiar) may put me behind the curve but making up for it while working my ass off and taking government options in the meantime is the only way I can provide a responsible lifestyle for my family Now. (WHEW, runnin onnnn...) RECOGNIZE THE HAND UP. The time in my life when I qualified for welfare was when my spouse was serving in the military and I was a full time student/ brand new mom. Isn't it ironic?
John: @Sis, I respect you for what you are doing! And your situation would be a hand up. Sadly, your situation is in the minority. Originally (30 years ago), it was a hand up . . . then it became a lifestyle for many. It is not a matter of who works harder. Many, Many people work MUCH harder than me. For me, every time someone receiving assistance lives beyond their own means, it is a hand out! If I pick up a 12 of Leinie's on my way home and I am on medicaid . . . then it's a hand out. If I have a card thing (they were food stamps when I was a kid) and I go out and drop $40 at dinner . . . then it's a hand out. Except, the gov't has taken the shame out of it so it's easier to do. The fact that we are having this conversation is proof of the indoctrination of socialism into our society!
At this point in the conversation, I had enough and was forced to interject. Yes, with a bit of snark, but also with intelligent, rational dialogue. I find that demanding intellectual honesty and objectivity turns the debate in "our" favor.
Me: @John, I like the part where we have been indoctrinated by socialists. I wonder when that happened in my life... Maybe it was from watching "Captain Planet". Ah yes, the writers of that show must have planned it all out from the beginning. Global warming, the election of Barack Obama, Universal Healthcare... I'm sorry Jeff, but that sounded like tinfoil wingnuttery to me. It's a shame that an intellectually honest conversation can't be had about the various options we have as citizens due to the demonization of certain words/ideas. I submit that welfare isn't the solution to poverty, and has caused problems of its own, but so has the free market (i.e. the unregulated housing market and hedge funds which led to our current recession). If you have traveled any, you would know that various countries implement universal healthcare - some with government options and/or mandates... These are great countries and can hardly be described as U.S.S.R.-esqe.
Alan: So what? We give out health care to all who need it? Then we give out housing, food, etc. Why work?
Me: @Alan, Do folks in Scandinavia not work? How about Switzerland? Canada? UK? France? Germany? The UK and Germany are in the top 10 economies of the world. Your argument is ridiculous.
Danish friend: @Jeff and Alan, Man, didn't know I lived in a socialist country.... No, wait, I can't be, 'cause we have people living og the streets AND billionaires. And a lot of people in between. And yes, we work. We work to pay for childcare, food, housing, transportation, dentists, clothes and all the stuff that you work to pay for. Beside the fact that we like working, as do you guys. Most of the time :-) But if disease or disaster hits the homeless guy, he goes to the same hospital as I do, is treated by the same doctors.And he can get his sh*t together and start educating himself without paying for it. Our system has a lot of flaws, but it is still built on the basic principle of equal rights for everybody when it comes to healthcare and education.That is why I pay 50% of my income in taxes every month. Gladly. It is also one of the reasons that the gap between rich and poor is not nearly as large here as it is in the U.S. Being poor sucks in Scandinavia, too. It just doesn't kill you.
It always helps to have friends from around the world back you up. In a world that is becoming so interconnected, how do conservatives miss out on so many opportunities to learn from other cultures, etc.?
Me: @Danish friend... A significant, but not majority, of our citizens believe that the U.S. is a socialist country now that Democrats are in power. That means your country is "worse" than a socialist country. They equate it with Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, etc. You see why I am so intent on changing the world now, eh? We are riddled with misinformation and unjust anger with the rest of the world. It needs to stop. Thanks for being a part of the conversation! :)
Alan @Me, In your "changed" world, is there any room to debate your ideas? In addition, please don't group me into any mold. Who is riddled with misinformation and unjust anger? Can you also tell me why liberals have the need to apologize to foreigners?
Why does everything always have to be about them? They try to pick a fight rather than talk about issues. It is clear that this conservative would rather forcefully shun foreigners rather than listen to them.
Me: @Alan, Not when it comes to social justice. There is no room when that is on the table. There are too many disenfranchised people in the world to allow for more social stratification. I believe your free-market-supporting politics do just that. I generalize because some have a myopic view of the world - one that does not take into account the successes/failures that other nations have had with social programs that provide universal healthcare at a low cost. We can learn from their mistakes and build a healthcare system that is truly world class, so long as we don't automatically assume that the American way is the only way... At no point do I state you are the target of my last comment. It was in response to my Danish friend's post. I stated "A significant, but not majority, of our citizens", not "Alan". If you feel the comment was aimed at you, maybe the comment does speak for you...
Me: @Alan, "We" is defined as Americans. I believe that some of our citizens are misinformed. They are made angry with the rest of the world (i.e. socialists and/or communists) by listening to pseudo-journalism on the radio and cable TV. They assume that these editorials are facts. I can't answer why some liberal Americans apologize to European nations. Danish friend is my friend. I respect her and her opinion, and if she needed an apology from me I would give it to her. Although... I'm pretty sure I didn't apologize to her in my previous comment - I just explained to her how certain Americans feel about her country and how I personally disagree with that feeling. Why don't we stop focusing on semantics and start discussing what we can do about universal coverage and lowering costs?
Danish friend: @Me, I hear you. Feeling the anger a bit, yes :-) No need for anger, I just live in another country. @John and Alan, I am not a U.S.hater or a communist , or even a socialist, I just live in a place where the government makes very different decisions than yours does. Some are hideously bad decisions and some are good, just like the decisions your govenment makes. That goes for both the Republicans and the Democrats, by the way. So I'm offering the perspective of a person who has grown up in a different place than you.
Alan: http://www.youtube.com/...
Me: @Alan, http://www.youtube.com/...
Are we letting "the talking heads" talk for us?
Alan: @Me, that is nice of those medical professionals to donate their time and skills to serve the people. that is what makes america great, we extend a hand and help each other out in their time of need,we aren't forced to do so. nothing wrong with helping people help themselves. charity should be left to the community. there is nothing stopping this wealthy man and others that share his views to open their wallets and help those in need. i am sure he could "adopt" a family and pay their health insurance premiums, but I doubt he is doing that.
Me: @Alan, Hmm... Charity should be left to the community, eh? We just sit back and hope that private corporations and individuals pick up the tab because they feel like it is the right thing to do? How has that worked for us lately? That is not an idea that has proven effective to ensure universal coverage and low costs. The opposite is true. I would rather vote with my fellow community members and force our representative government to regulate private insurance companies. This would limit their ability to profit and lower costsl... We are the only country that allows unlimited profit for health care industries and most experts agree this is part of our problem. I would personally take it a step further and incorporate a universal plan (government or private) that covers all citizens and eliminates hidden costs such as trips to the emergency room by the uninsured. By covering all, the majority of our citizens will be healthier - creating a healthier workforce for our companies.
John: @Me, Please don't "group" me with anyone else (no offense, Alan). I am an individual with individual thoughts and opinions. I have enjoyed reading these posts for the most part. I believe in regulating profits in health care. De-regulation has been one of the biggest problems with the current state of our economy and health care. Regulating insurance companies profits is different that increasing the level of income re-distribution (which is already unfair). For me, the economy and healthcare boils down to the moral character and responsibility of people. Irresponsible, greedy, and immoral people doing anything to maximize profits anger the left. Irresponsible, "entitled", doing anything to "get more" (even if they haven't earned it) people anger the right. Until we look in the mirror (all of us) and realize where we can improve and work to the middle, no change will ever happen.
It is almost eerie how both Alan and John think I was talking about them when I denounced those who call Europeans Nazis, Socialists, Nazi Socialists, etc... But with an opening of objective dialogue, it was now time to reason... Again, I apologize for the length, but therein lies some heady stuff, and the conversation ends with a victory... for us.
Me: @John, As mentioned to Alan, at no point were you "grouped". I spoke about a minority of Americans without directing to either of you. As I said to Alan, if you felt I was talking about you, maybe you are in that minority... I do think your last post was beautifully articulated. That is the sort of objectivity I have been waiting to hear. Both sides of the political arena do appear to be angered at the same thing - exploitation. Unregulated companies are in the habit of exploiting the poor and the poor are in the habit of exploiting welfare... If we agree this happens on both sides of the aisle, then we can work to end exploitation en masse. More regulation is key to end corporate exploitation of the poor, but what about ending the poor's exploitation of welfare? Should we eliminate all forms of welfare? We don't eliminate all forms of commerce to end corporate exploitation of the poor... Maybe more regulation of welfare would help?
Me: @John, I work in a biomedical research facility and the MDs always speak of the importance of over-medicating the public rather than under-medicating the public. This is necessary so that no person goes untreated for depression, chronic pain, etc... Personally, I would rather have more welfare in the world, even if the poor exploit it. They are the ones suffering in this world - not the corporate elite... One final anecdote that I picked up watching Star Trek First Contact this weekend. Jean-Luc is speaking with a 21st century woman and they are talking about economics. Jean-Luc says there is no money in the future. She is startled that he doesn't get paid to be the captain of the Enterprise... He states that, in the future, people work to better themselves... not for money... That is the future I would rather live in.
John: @Me, I agree with ending exploitation and common ground can be found amongst us; because, we don't have a lobbyist's check in our pockets. Politicians are a different story. YES, let's regulate large corporations to help eliminate the exploitation of the poor. But, how do we regulate welfare without stepping all over the ACLU and other organizations of the like? Better way to put it, how can we increase the level of personal responsibility among the poor? Drug testing, skill training, benifits based on productivity, etc. will "violate" one's rights. What cuts can be made within the current system to fund for multiplying the community systems that will empower people, rather than enable people? The answer cannot continue to be "tax the rich" and increase it at will.
John: @Me, Also, I love the idea of peaple working only to better themselves. But, seriously, 50% of our nation would do nothing of the sort. There would still be poor, crime, etc. The only difference would be that nobody would be "rich" and the overall standard of life would be less and no reason to work harder, because you cannot improve it no matter how hard you work. Gotta run. Good communication, here!
Alan: @Me, I do agree with you. I believe that some reform is necessary, andmore regulation of insurance co.'s is fine by me. What I don't want is the government taking over another industry when they have proven so many times in the past that they cannot run any program efficiently. Also, like you, I want everyone to have access to health care, I just don't want the quality and innovation to stop because we are after quantity over quality. There are market solutions, we just need to find them. So far, the govt. has not gained my confidence when it comes to just about any program that they run.
Me: @John, I think we are hitting at the very core of Democracy here - exposing the fact that all lobbyist groups whether they be pro-corporation or pro-civil rights tend to snuff out the voices of individuals like you and me. There is a Supreme Court case going on right now which is determining whether or not corporations should have financial limits during Presidential elections (it might overturn the bipartisan McCain-Feingold reforms). I think there should be limits, and these limits should probably extend to large lobbying firms as well... including the ACLU. The louder my voice gets the better. Regarding the regulation of welfare, history has shown that direct and unlimited financial hand-outs are not a good idea unless there are strict time limits to wean the recipient off of the aid and programs that assist in the reintegration of that person into society. Of course it is not 100% perfect. Nothing is.
Me: John, As for working to better yourself, it might be possible if everyone's basic needs were met. I earn a government stipend to perform basic science research. I do it because I love it, not because it will make me rich. The rewards come from recognition from my peers that my science is good science, not because I earned enough to buy a golden yacht. If those basic needs were met, 50% of people doing "nothing of the sort" might turn to 10%... Sure there would be some poor, some crime, but not as much as everyone's basic needs would be met. How rich does one need to perceive himself/herself in the future in order to have incentive to work? A billionaire? A trillionaire? Can't we agree that no single person should own the entire planet? An entire country? An entire state? An entire city? It just seems rational that some limit should exist or else we become dictated by that plutocrat...
Me: @Alan, The National Institutes of Health is the premier biomedical research facility in the world. The grants it affords independent scientists allow for much of the innovation you see in our health care system. These are government grants that fund research and have essentially no profit motive yet results in ground-breaking information that private companies utilize to design drugs, medical technology, etc. Other countries drool over our government-subsidized academic science. It is the best science in the world. All private insurers do is take money from the healthy and give it to the sick - while taking a profit for the transaction. They are not involved in innovation. I'm fine with a private, market solution - if there was one on the table. It works in Switzerland. Make sure you tell your representatives to integrate that into a bill if the public option fails.
Alan: @Me, No problem with govt. subsidized science. So let them subsize insurance/health care, and not take control. They are better at just providing funds and letting the people do their thing.
Me: Absolutely... Strict controls on the public option so that it can't "take over" or out compete private insurers seems reasonable to me. No need to kill it and start from scratch...
Did you catch Alan's last comment? Now he has no problem with government-subsidized health care - as long as proper regulatory controls are put in place to ensure that the public option cannot outcompete private insurers which he believes will lead to single payer. It seems to me that conservatives should be fighting for more regulation of the public option rather than fighting to kill it. With no energy geared towards regulating it, and if it does pass, their worst fears might come true - right? The bottom line is that we can still shift the debate from killing the public option to regulating it. We still have time.