Donalhinely’s Blog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

1. Mike Partyka 8.19.09 / 5am

   “The Democratic health care bill should have contained only two things: a single payer plan and a middle finger.”

   That’s exactly what it does contain. And that’s exactly why it’s failing — because Democrats, and progressives in general, are under this silly notion that, “We’re evolved and you’re not. Obviously you’re not, because you don’t think like we do. Therefore we should make your decisions for you and take as much control of your lives as possible.” That may be the evolved way, but it sure as hell isn’t the American way. Americans by and large don’t like being talked down to by their elected officials. We expect them to listen to us when we say, “We don’t want this.” Now it appears they’re listening, and that’s better for America.

   As for Republicans, and conservatives in general, quit lying about us. Sure we agree that the status quo is unacceptable, and we’ve offered our ideas about how to change things using free-market principles. Some of these ideas would accomplish everything the public option is supposed to accomplish without government’s having to spend a single dime, but the Democrats don’t want any part of that, and why not? Because Democrats thrive on people’s dependence upon government to keep themselves in office, while market-driven reform encourages independence and personal responsibility.

   You don’t like opinion columns from Townhall.com? Fine. Here’s one from Huffington Post that sums up what conservatives have been saying all along. Read it and ask yourself why the Democrats haven’t offered to include a single one of these provisions in their health care bills.

   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-paul-toffel/health-care-reform-an-ori_b_258388.html

   Reply
2. Mike Partyka 8.19.09 / 5am

   Forgot to check the box that says “Notify me of follow-up comments via email.” (This feature doesn’t seem to be working for the other thread. Will see if it works here.)

   Reply
3. Frodo Nelson 8.20.09 / 6am

   Mike, you’re addicted to internet links. I’m staging an intervention as soon as I can pry myself off Facebook. And be nice.

   Donal, agreed, it’s honestly horrific how much inertia and apathy can stop social progress. You’d think humankind would have figured out how to be humane by now. Too much hate and judgement.

   Reply
4. donalhinely 8.22.09 / 5pm

   I’m sorry Mike, but Americans–by and large–want this reform. Poll after poll shows that once you strip away the bullshit and misinformation and see what the president is actually promoting, Americans overwhelmingly agree. When they see that health care reform without the public option is simply a huge money grab by the private insurance companies, they overwhelmingly support reform. It’s just that the Republican Fear Machine is so adept at scaring people and the pockets of the insurance lobbyists are so deep that it’s hard for some folks to see through the veil.

   If by “free market principles” you mean laissez faire economics, I need only point to our current economic crisis.

   I don’t know how to address the weirdness of your statement that Democrats “thrive upon people’s dependence on government” but I will share with you something that a local editorial writer here in Nashville said. Saritha Prabhu wrote, “even societies that value individualism, self-reliance and personal liberty, can’t ultimately hold together and be sustainable if the common good is continually disregarded. Even when we think we can stand alone, we’re still in it together.” That is the crux of the matter, Mike. You just don’t believe that it is a moral imperative for a government constructed by the people to be obligated to insure the welfare of ALL its constituents–even a government in a supposedly “Christian nation.” You don’t believe in a “commonwealth”, you see a nation of individuals. It is your right to believe so. We just fundamentally disagree on the meaning of the social contract.

   (And BTW, saying that the average Americans’ life expectancy would improve without those pesky homicides and car wrecks is like saying Ted Williams would have hit .500 if not for those damn ground outs.)

   peace bro,
   dh

   Reply
5. donalhinely 8.22.09 / 5pm

   Thanks, Frodo. Nice to have you here. I need some help; Mike is persistent! : )

   Humans acting humanely…I like that.
   cheers,
   dh

   Reply
6. Mike Partyka 8.22.09 / 8pm

   1) I do indeed disagree that “it is a moral imperative for a government constructed by the people to be obligated to insure the welfare of ALL its constituents,” but only because of one word you used: “insure.” You will note that the preamble to the Consitution of the United States uses a different word: “promote.” So had you said, “It is a moral imperative for a government constructed by the people to be obligated to promote the welfare of ALL its constituents,” I would have replied, “No, I fully agree with you.”

   Apart from the fact that the framers of the Constitution used it, why do I like the word “promote” rather than “insure?” Simply because “promote” recognizes that there are limits to what government — or any human agency, for that matter — can do, whereas “insure” implies that government has an infinite amount of resources to expend toward any number of lofty, utopian goals. For example, government can “promote” literacy, but it cannot “insure” that everyone in America can read. Government can “promote” healthy living, but it cannot “insure” that everyone in America will eat well and engage in daily exercise. Government can “promote” any number of things, really, but it cannot “insure” a single one of them — nor should it. Government, like any other human agency, has limits. It needs to recognize, respect, and work within those limits if it wants to be in any way successful.

   2) Nice quote about “the common good,” but here’s a question for you: Who decides what the common good is? Ever watch “Dr. Zhivago” or “Reds”? Both are fascinating movies about the birth of Communism, and what I found particularly compelling about both movies is how, once Communism had won the day and actually started implementing its policies, the very people who advocated it were the ones who got screwed over by it. Why? Because they lost all say in what “the common good” was. The Party had all the say. The Party knew what was best. The people simply had to obey — or be killed, as happened to millions under Communism. Millions were put in the gulags, and millions more starved to death because the government thought they knew more about farming and raising crops than the people did.

   So if you want to know what is the nature of the fear underlying so many people’s discontent, that’s it in a nutshell: people are afraid of the attitude that they’re seeing in the Obama administration and have been seeing in the liberal elites for some time now — the attitude that “we, the politicians,” or “we, the Party” and not “we, the people” know what’s best for America. Because that kind of attitude generally results in people dying in mass quantities. It happened in Russia. It happened in China. It’s still happening in Zimbabwe. It could happen here. Any time a government thinks it knows better than its people, things get worse, not better, and then people start dying.

   Right now Obama’s out there on the health care campaign trail doing a lot of talking (and a lot of lying, in my opinion). What he needs to be doing is listening. We can still accomplish health care reform without the public option. The public option can’t be the Democrats’ only idea, can it? I would hope not. So, if we could just take the best ideas from both the Democrat and the Republican camps and bundle them together in a bill, then we’d have a bipartisan solution that every American could stand behind. The challenge is whether Obama and the Democrats can swallow their pride, stop talking, and listen for a change. We CAN work together on this. But not if this “my way or the highway” attitude remains the Democrats’ mantra.

   Reply
7. donalhinely 9.1.09 / 6pm

   No, actually I prefer a single-payer system to the public option. That is just one concession among many that the Democrats have made to the Obstructionist Party. It is clear now that the Republicans never intended to be a part of reform, that their only agenda is the defeat of Obama. They long for his Waterloo while millions of America’s sick are discriminated against by the companies Republicans so desperately support. They spew inanities about “death panels” while hypocritically backing a system that routinely denies coverage as a profit motive. And people die.
   Seriously, you sound like Condi Rice and Dick Cheney selling war for profit in Iraq. “Millions will die…” Give me a break. I’m all for vigilance, but if you think Obama is Stalin I really don’t have much else to say to you on this topic. As I said previously, I appreciate your comments and I have enjoyed our tete a tete but we are dissolving into an endless vortex of partisan pablum. (Hey, that’s got a ring to it!)
   Let’s call it a draw and move on to other topics. Speaking of which…I have a new post on guns!
   cheers pal,
   dh

   Reply
8. Mike Partyka 9.1.09 / 11pm

   1) Republicans never intended to be part of any “reform” that will ultimately lead to a single-payer system, that’s true. However, Republicans have introduced their own health care reform bills in both houses of Congress, so it’s factually incorrect to maintain that Republicans do not want reform at all. You might not want the kind of reform they want, or you might not think their reforms will ultimately do any good, but the fact is that Republicans, too, want reform.
   2) I can understand your outrage that HMOs deny claims based on profit motive, but your implicit assumption that the government won’t deny claims for similar motives just strikes me as naive. But even if it’s true, what would government’s reasons be for allowing the claims that HMOs deny? I can think of a few: “It’s just taxpayers’ money. We can always tax them for more.” “Just take some money from Social Security.” “We’ll just have the Fed print more money.” The idea that a government insurance company would make different decisions than a private insurance company would because “government cares more” is, frankly, laughable. At least with the private insurance company you have the option of taking your business elsewhere if you’re not satisfied. What will you do once government insurance is the only game in town?
   3) Here’s how the discussion thing works. You say something, and if I think you’ve said something worth responding to, I’ll respond. Then if I’ve said something in my response that you think is worth responding to, then you’ll respond. And we’ll repeat the process over and over again until we’ve all had our say, and nobody feels like responding anymore. THEN we can call it quits and move on. So, the ball’s now in your court. You can respond to any or all of what I’ve just said, thus opening the door to the possibility of another response from me, or you can remain silent and give me nothing to respond to, thus silencing me by default. I’m fine with whatever you decide. (And no matter what happens, I’ll be moving on to the gun control bit, too. I can multi-rant.)

   Reply
9. donalhinely 9.2.09 / 2pm

   Well, MIke, since the ball you put in my court is a big, fat lob I can’t help but slam it back your way…
   Here’s the winner for most “naive” and “laughable” statements of our entire discussion on health care:

   “At least with the private insurance company you have the option of taking your business elsewhere if you’re not satisfied.”

   What planet are you on? This is ludicrous on a level that is mind-bending. Yes, you have the ‘option’ of paying $1,500 out of pocket each month for a policy that MIGHT pay claims if you get sick. Most people don’t have that kind of money. The prohibitive cost of private health insurance means that there is NO option (except the emergency room) for millions of Americans. That is what the whole debate is largely about, Mike. You might as well tell a sky diver with no parachute that he has an option to land on a hay bale.

   Secondly, if you have a pre-existing condition, you do not have the option of ‘taking your business elsewhere’ in the current private insurance system. As someone with a heart murmur (prolapsed mitral valve), I have personal experience with this. But here is where the insidious nature of Republican “reform” comes in play. Republicans offer to cover every American by giving subsidies to the very companies that are causing the problem in the first place! Covering all Americans under Republican reform means your tax dollars will go to fatten an already bloated, corrupt, and wrongly conceived industry. Private insurance companies absolutely love Republican reform. Have you seen that wonderful “Hallmark” commercial…”we’re America’s health insurance companies working toward a bi-partisan solution…” Translation: We’ve paid good money to compromise both Republicans and Democrats in Congress, so we are very happy to support efforts that will enrich our CEOs and shareholders under the guise of “reform.”

   And to answer your question: “What will you do once government insurance is the only game in town?”

   I will have health insurance, Mike.

   I will have something I don’t have now. I will have the peace of mind that comes with knowing I won’t lose my house or what little savings I have if I or my wife or my son become seriously ill. I long for that peace of mind. Not a day goes by that I don’t acknowledge how lucky we are to have what we have. And not a day goes by where I don’t feel the anxiety of knowing it can all go away.

   Finally, the whole anti-government undercurrent that marks the debate on the Right is so hypocritical, it is sickening. The government grew more under the previous administration than in any other time in recent memory. The same yahoos in Congress who are calling Obama a Socialist under their breath, voted for one of the greatest federal expansions in American history. They proudly and loudly decry government intervention in the economy and bailing out the car companies while quietly designating your tax dollars to prop up private insurance companies. And what happened to the idea that government can be a positive force? Would it kill a conservative to admit that there may be some things that government can do better than private enterprise, that perhaps there are some things that should fall outside the profit margin? The great comedian Bill Hicks once put it this way: “Quit putting a goddamn dollar sign on every fucking thing on this planet.”

   Reply
10. Mike Partyka 9.2.09 / 9pm

    1) “The prohibitive cost of private health insurance means that there is NO option (except the emergency room) for millions of Americans.” And why is this? Well, one reason is that government won’t allow health insurance to be sold across state lines, thus limiting competition. Another reason is that government mandates force private insurance companies to cover things above and beyond lifesaving care, thus driving up premiums for everybody. Until you get rid of the government restrictions that make private insurance less competitive, you can’t put all the blame on private insurance for their high prices. One of the reasons Obama said he wants a public option is to provide more competition, because more competition means lower prices. Well, if government, by deregulating, can provide more competition among private insurance companies without pumping trillions of dollars into creating a public option, isn’t that the more responsible thing for government to do? From the perspective of fiscal responsibility, “free” beats “trillions of dollars” any day.

    2) “If you have a pre-existing condition, you do not have the option of ‘taking your business elsewhere’ in the current private insurance system.” That, I suspect, goes back to the whole government mandate problem. What if a private insurance company were able to say to you, “I’ll insure you for everything barring the mitral valve prolapse”? Then you’d know you’d be covered for a number of things including strokes, cancers, accidents, etc., just not the known problem — which kinda sorta falls right in line with the whole concept of “insurance,” when you think about it.

    3) “Republicans offer to cover every American by giving subsidies to the very companies that are causing the problem in the first place!” On the contrary, Republican reforms include (a) cutting the tie between employment and health care so that you don’t lose your health insurance if you lose your job, (b) further enabling Health Spending Accounts that allow people to put pre-tax money away for health emergencies, premiums, etc., (c) tort reform to stop doctors both from having to pay exorbitant malpractice insurance premiums and from performing unnecessary defensive medicine, and (d) getting rid of all the government regulations (like the two mentioned above) that make private insurance less competitive. NONE of these reforms take money from taxpayers and put it into the wallets of CEOs and shareholders.

    4) “Would it kill a conservative to admit that there may be some things that government can do better than private enterprise?” Conservatives admit this already. Government is great for raising armies, coining money, issuing patents and copyrights…you know, the limited, enumerated things that the federal government has actually been entrusted and empowered to do by the Constitution. Outside of this limited set, we should leave things to the states, or to the people (i.e., private industry), respectively, just as the Founding Fathers intended.

    Reply
11. Robert D. 9.4.09 / 1am

    Wow, there sure are a lot of “I”‘s and “my”‘s in there, Donal. So basically you want those who chose financial security over their dream job to pay for your lack of income ability because you CHOSE to go a different way through life. You should have chosen a career in higher demand if you wanted the possibilities that come along with it. You are entitled to none.

    I would love to play my guitar and fiddle for a living but I chose to leave it as a sadly neglected hobby and work in a job that’s not super fulfilling but pays the bills which is priority number one.

    I’m sorry you miss the days when you lived at home with mom and dad and didn’t have to worry about anything other than what you’d do with your free time but it’s time to grow up and stop trying to reprise that role with the government as your surrogate while you frolic and chase your dreams unencumbered.

    Stop trying to force the government to be everyone’s parents and trying to force people to accept it. Get a marketable skill and come and join the adult world and earn your keep with skills that are in demand at the level you desire and keep your selfish, self-centered hands out of the pockets of those who made better decisions in life regarding financial security and all the medical care it can buy.

    If nationalized healthcare come to pass, I’m going to quite my job and run a tube rental bar & grill on the banks of my favorite river and go on the dole too. I’m not sure who will pay for our healthcare but heck, why not!?

    Until you hit it big, it’s called paying your dues. If you don’t hit it big, well, that sucks. (Cliche alert:) Get a real job if you want real benefits. Benefits cost money. Taking the dollar signs out only serves people who want the fruits of other people’s labor. Keep your hands off my fruit.

    Reply
12. donalhinely 9.4.09 / 3am

    Well Robert, I appreciate your comments. It might come as a surprise to you that I agree with part of your diatribe. I believe very strongly in hard work; I’ve been doing it all my life. You should be careful when making assumptions about people you don’t even know. (Believe me, I’ve done that too many times in this debate and I’m trying to change my ways.) Your perception of my life as an independent musician is a little off. I don’t punch a clock, but I work 7 days a week 12 hours a day in an effort to scare up a living entertaining people and trying to write songs that are relevant. If I shirked my responsibility, then I couldn’t feed my 9 year old son and my lovely wife would justifiably leave me. I don’t complain about the hard work and uncertainty of the music business. It is the choice I made. (To be more accurate, it chose me; I do have a master’s degree in history sitting in the closet.) I promise you I don’t want to live with my parents, though they are wonderful supportive people. Do you honestly think all musicians want to live in their parents’ basement?? Talk about cliche. I’ve never taken a dime of government assistance, though I have no problem with those who do. I pay my taxes, just like you Robert, and I would like to know my hard earned money goes to taking care of my neighbors instead of feeding no bid contracts from Haliburton. I’m one of those naive fools who actually believes we are all in this together. It’s not a popular stand these days, apparently. I’m not looking for a hand out; I’m not looking for something for free. I just wish my country could join the rest of the industrialized world. I could point out some more flaws in your argument–like the fact that there are thousands and thousands of over-qualified people with awesome skill sets who have lost their jobs and no longer have health insurance–but I don’t have time right now. You see, I’m packing for 3-days of performances (frolicking? did you actually use the word frolic?) this holiday weekend at a festival in Ohio. Many hours were spent securing this gig, many hours were spent preparing for it, many hours will be spent driving to it and coming home again. All hopefully to sell some CDs so I can keep on doing it, doing it because I love the people I meet and because I’m forever fascinated by the power of music. I have no illusions about “making it big.” I’m not really sure what that even means anymore. I’m happy paying my dues.

    Robert, I’m glad you wrote your comments because you’ve actually given me some inspiration and helped affirm me in my career choice! I guess if everyone thought like you, we’d have no artists, eh?

    By the way, I couldn’t help but detect a note of bitterness in your comment. I think you should pick up that guitar. Nothing’s better for calming the nerves. And honestly, you don’t sound very happy with the choices you’ve made (sorry if I’m making assumptions here). Maybe you still have something to say with that guitar. Don’t rob the world of your voice, Bob. It’s never too late, pal.
    Best wishes,
    dh

    Reply
13. Robert D. 9.4.09 / 4am

    Oh crud…I forgot to say at the end (always forget stuff when I’m ranting!), “You’re not a charity case. Man up.” Charity is vital in any society, but you are, as I just quoted myself there, not a charity case.

    (As an aside, I just checked out the videos on your website. Good stuffs. Your music reminds me a bit of Guy Clark. I especially like “Half as Cool as Nick Lowe.” Props on your writing and musical skills and best of luck with your chosen career in music!)

    Reply
14. Robert D. 9.4.09 / 4am

    I wasn’t questioning your work ethic one bit (maybe using “frolic” was was misleading. );I was just pointing out that some work pays better than others. Minimum wage workers bust azz (we’ve all been there) for squat on a paycheck. I got tired of that and picked something that was in demand.

    Yes, lots of skilled people are unemployed but lots of skilled people are skilled in…skills that are not in high demand. When there are too many people for a given job, the cost to hire them goes down with competition just like competition drives down the cost of goods in the market place.

    Yes, I would love to pursue things that really strike a chord with me but I am conservative and go for the low risk situation, thus I work for an evil company. It’s corporate socialism of sort!

    I do appreciate a wide variety of music and do support underinsured(!) musicians by going to shows and buying CD’s. I firmly believe the best ones going are not in the big time, pop, music industry machine. Having a well rounded world with a variety of people to spice it up and having a world that is fully funded is quite a conundrum. Is society losing its soul? Probably, but I do like to chose where my personal income goes regardless.

    All the best to you and yours despite the ranting diatribe.

    Reply
15. donalhinely 9.4.09 / 5am

    Thanks, Robert. I took all of your comments in the spirit of debate.

    Now buy some of my CDs. ; )

    cheers,
    d

    Reply
16. Robert Attaway 2.16.10 / 9pm

    i have a question for any of you who care to answer. if somewhere down the road healthcare reform comes about,will congress have to use it or will they still have their own healthcare plan? (retirement plan,pay raise plan,etc.) maybe if they(congress) are to be included in what they pass we will all come out ahead! does anyone agree?

    Reply
17. donalhinely 2.22.10 / 10pm

    Good to see you here, Griz. Most definitely, I agree. That should be a good test for all legislation, including authorization to go to war. I say bring back the draft and see how many Congressmen are willing to send their sons and daughters into harm’s way….

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Hemingway by warpspire.

Entries RSS Comments RSS