Skip to main content

Over at The Wonk Blog, today, there is an article highlighting one of the ongoing successes of The Affordable Care Act: more citizens signing up for Medicaid.

These were not only new "eligibles", mind you. These new enrollments are also people who had previously been qualified for Medicaid, but didn't know it. One of the prevailing purposes of ACA is to get as many citizens insured as possible with meaningful insurance, and not requiring them to pay sacrificial dollars for "junk" insurance.

In a comment after the article the net result is that this same information is seen by one citizen as a very bad thing, with even more citizens "sucking at the government trough".

Here's the difference.

One issue, with two completely different results from two entirely disparate points of view. Yet, the (as one might well guess) inevitable pie fight was not purposed to entertain debate nearly so much as it was to bash the opposing view because of the view held.

Where is the discussion?

I hope you will follow me just below the squiggledoodlethingey fold for a few observations.

About twenty years or so ago, I was known to say, at virtually every possible opportunity that the greatest victim of our times was the death of civil discourse. We just weren't talking to one another about the important local, state and federal issues of the day. I believed that nothing more than a general reminder would correct this national ill, because so much of the life of the American citizen centered around civil discourse.

In the market place, differing views could receive airing, debate would ensue, and (usually) an accommodated compromise would yield the collective truth of the issue for those engaged in the discourse. Citizens, the electors, would notify via personal dispatch or public Letters To The Editor the various sides of an issue, as well as the compromise reached among the citizens of anytown, USA. Citizens were doing the work of citizenship. Electors were informing electeds of expected behavior. Those who chose a different path, whether along party lines or for some other personal sense of entitlement were summarily cashiered for failure to perform their duties as expected. If they couldn't accept and further the will of their electors, perhaps their replacement would.

It is quite difficult to begin an undoubtedly heated debate only AFTER setting the ground rules, yet this is a required course of action if compromised agreement is to be achieved. Things like the acknowledgement of multiple, valid points of view, or being recognized before speaking, or agreement that the final vote amongst those present would prevail, regardless of the "side" holding said prevailing view. You know, things like that. The civil portion of discourse. Very rarely, for instance, were handguns or long guns allowed, and for very obvious reasons.

Then, of course, there was the all-important "order" of the discourse. Who would speak first? Who would respond first? You know, the discourse part. Every voice and viewpoint would be heard, if offered. Then discussion. Then the amassed citizens would, honoring the hard-fought and hard-won democracy, vote. Women had none, nor did Blacks--who were not really entire human beings. That was simply how it was in those days not so very long ago.

No, not really so very long ago. However we did have a few obstacles along the way from those days to this, including a Civil War. By God's Grace, and some incredibly strong and determined leadership, our nation survived and became. That process gave us a rare glimpse into what it was that we had, as a nation of citizens, achieved and won--and lost. Our civility flagged for a time, and our discourse became a bit ragged and tattered. It seemed as though our discourse required a new dimension: punctuation. Unfortunately, the punctuation we preferred was war.

That really is how our civil discourse has been punctuated ever since. If you disagree, killing the one you disagree with is one way of ending, if not outright winning your given position within topical discourse. Now, in these days, it would seem as though the legitimacy of your position can be dictated by nothing more than your anger level, your shouting decibels, or how often you can repeat a known lie. (That is not side-specific, by the way.)

One of the major differences between then and now is that those engaging in the discourse are far removed from the necessity of living out the result of the discourse. It's not personal, it's political. At the end of the day, one side's passionate beliefs are simply unassailable, but also unavailable because they are not considered from within the "risk pool" of those having to live out the result of these empassioned expellations.

It's called a "reality gap", and that is a very wide, long and deep chasm. Unfortunately, that chasm is most likely filled with those unable to defend themselves, or voluntarily pick up these new and profound decisions. They just have to live with, or under them.

And that's the difference.

The more powerfully clarity is required to understand the reality of a given difficulty, the more required civil discourse becomes. How does one take the amazing divergence of views as described here, and create vital, solutions-driven discourse among the citizens of this land who are the very ones who will be required to live out the result?

What will compel citizen to overwhelm political partisan?

I believe the answer to that question is nothing more than intent. We will, if we intend to. No citizen should be comfortable sitting idly by as critically important issues are discussed around us. You may have forgotten, or you may never have truly known, but you do have a voice, and a vote--unless one of your fellow citizens has forced that privilege from you. There are many centers of power and/or influence who do not want you to know, or to remember the power your citizenship holds in the matters of self-governance. I am not one of those.

And that is the difference.

Where is the civil discourse?

That is a bit trickier to answer, yet multiple answers are readily available to any citizen chooses to embrace these answers fully. I personally know of 9 hours each week where you are an invited guest to my airwaves to discourse on these issues, but I will not drag you to them to do so. There are countless organizations which are possibly all about your side of an issue. That's a great place to begin because, for the most part, you find like-minded citizens who share, support, endorse and encourage legislators or other electeds who bring power to the strength of your convictions. Change becomes possible only after engagement is begun.

If you cannot hear, or see, or find civil discourse around your passion, why not begin one?

I used to absolutely love this particular feature of my truck driving job. Every day, I was in a different place--and usually a different state. Finding a truck stop, I would saunter up to the "horseshoe" and order coffee. It would usually take about five minutes of idle chatter to begin just such a discourse. We had some barn burners, I tell you! But discourse was had, and accommodated compromise was reached. Minds were heard, and sometimes even changed. We always walked away better for having had the discourse, and usually as friends to boot.

If this were to be our purpose, instead of being so narrowly focused on some unseen (and untrue) need to be correct, I think most of the problems facing our nation today would be significantly less inflammatory. A fair hearing is the most anyone truly wants; a fair shot at defending their position among those with similar or opposing views. They should have that opportunity. We could give those differing views an airing, even publicly. We could arrive at some truly negotiated compromise that everyone could live with.

Things would get done. Governance would happen.

What a difference that would be.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (0+ / 0-)

    Nurse Kelley says my writing is brilliant and my soul is shiny - who am I to argue?
    Left/Right: -7.75
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

    by Bud Fields on Fri Nov 15, 2013 at 02:41:45 PM PST

  •  Many are newly eligible (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bud Fields, OooSillyMe

    It is not, as the diary says, people who were already eligible for Medicaid but didn't bother signing up. There are some of those. But the huge group is childless adults at or just above poverty level -- in most states, adult-only households were not eligible for Medicaid at all under the old rules (unless they were on disability), but now are under the expansion. That's huge.

    Another large group is people who are close to but not below the poverty line; and (I believe) people with very low income, but too many assets to qualify before. (In some states the assets test is very stringent.)

    There are some who would have been eligible anyway, and are eligible even in states that didn't adopt the expansion, and it's good that the publicity has brought them in. But let's not minimize the impact of the expansion.

    •  You are correct in that (0+ / 0-)

      this diary is not only just about new enrollees who are, for the first time, qualified for Medicaid. In one instance example, of the 70,000 in the pool for Medicaid coverage, some 30,000 were already qualified, but either didn't know it or didn't actually apply. That is, it seems to me, significantly more than "a few" as you state.

      Your exceptions are well-stated and important to understand, because we keep having this debate about who it is that ACA may not initially cover.

      How is it possible to be significantly under the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), and still be "over resource" (having too much income to qualify for Medicaid? Stringency in the guidelines is one explanation.

      At least it is for me. As I learned today, that is precisely my case. Tennessee has very stringent (limiting) guidelines. But Tennessee is a unique example across the spectrum in at least one statistic: their Medicaid is self-funded (TennCare).

      Nurse Kelley says my writing is brilliant and my soul is shiny - who am I to argue?
      Left/Right: -7.75
      Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

      by Bud Fields on Fri Nov 15, 2013 at 05:30:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site