I’ve never been a fan of Bob Inglis. In one the first blog posts I ever wrote— back in 2003 when Inglis was gearing up for his run at a second stint as our U.S. Representative—I wrote about his hypocrisy in running for the old Congressional seat he’d vacated back in ’98 because of a term limit pledge that he later apparently came to regret. In the post, I mocked him for losing in his bid to unseat Democratic Senator Fritz Hollings that same year, and then having to wander in the wilderness for six years while his former aide Jim DeMint was using the same Congressional seat that Inglis once held as a springboard to the same U.S. Senate seat that Inglis once sought.
In that post I called Inglis a “corporate lawyer turned Congressman turned corporate lawyer†who was looking to regain his old seat as some sort of consolation prize for losing the Senate bid. After the election in ’04 when DeMint won that Senate seat—albeit after Hollings retired—I mocked Inglis by writing how the “student had overtaken the masterâ€, and I imagined how Bob Inglis would wile away the hours in his “small potatoes†Congressional seat wondering what might have been if it weren’t for that enterprising former aide of his.
Well today, I’m writing about Bob Inglis again. The difference this time, is that today I almost feel like praising the guy.
Last Thursday, Rep. Inglis held a town hall meeting in Boiling Springs to explain his position on President Obama’s health care reform bill. There was a packed house at the Upstate Family Resource Center, and glancing around at the crowd revealed a group that looked middle class, mostly over 40, and almost exclusively white. While waiting for the town hall meeting to begin, I started to wonder how things were going to shake out.
I’d noticed a few people when I first walked in with “Taxed Enough Already -TEA†signs, and I knew that Inglis hadn’t always been the most popular guy with the extremists on the right fringe of the GOP, but this meeting was about the President’s health care proposal, and Inglis had just released a list of 16 reasons he was opposed to the healthcare reform bill. Surely that would tamp down some of the ire from the hard right, wouldn’t it?
Well in a word, no.
The meeting started at 7 o’clock and right away the hostility of the crowd was evident. In the first part of the meeting, members of the crowd were allowed a chance to speak and raise issues, and right away it was apparent that this Inglis was going to be attacked from the right all night long. All the extreme right’s talking points were well represented. There was the guy who only wanted to talk about getting the “illegals†out of the country, and the woman who referenced a story from a well-worn conservative gossip site. There were people who warned about Obama’s supposedly-planned “Death Panel†and shouts about “euthanasia.” 16 minutes into the meeting, someone referenced Ron Paul and drew a standing ovation. Another woman brought up some conspiracy theory about forcing all Americans to receive an untested H1N1 vaccine and rather than laughing her out of the room, the crowd applauded.
There was even one woman who took it upon herself to call out Inglis for his support of a bill requiring all Federal buildings to replace their incandescent light bulbs as they burn out, with compact fluorescents—which she called “curly Q’sâ€. When Inglis asked the crowd why we shouldn’t replace the old bulbs in federal buildings with the more efficient CFL’s as they wear out, someone shouted “because they’re dangerousâ€. Nobody ever said exactly why the compact florescent light bulb is dangerous, but my guess is that those evil Obama-bulbs turn you gay with their unchristian, energy-efficient, florescent light.
When it came time for Inglis to speak, he had to spend most of his time pointing out that, like most of the people in the crowd, he doesn’t actually support the President’s healthcare proposal. He voiced his opposition to the proposed “public option†in the health care bill because, he claimed, the Government system would be able to undercut private insurance companies who wouldn’t be able to compete with the Government’s ability to negotiate lower prices for health care services.
I laughed to myself when I considered that someone from a party that trades on the idea that government is so inept that it can’t hit the ground with its hat in three tries, was now arguing that we can’t have a Government option because it would be too efficient. How a supposed free-marketeer can make the argument that competition is bad with a straight face is beyond me.
Still, even though I vehemently disagreed with Rep. Inglis’ arguments against President Obama’s health care plan, he wasn’t using scare tactics or being disingenuous in his arguments. He had an honest disagreement with the plan based on his own convictions. While I may not agree with his convictions, I spent the better part of the evening after that lamenting the fact that I would only be able to devote a few lines of my upcoming column to what should be the real centerpiece. A reasoned, sensible debate on health care might not have been nearly as heated or as interesting, but it would’ve been meaningful and substantive, two things that seem to be in short supply in modern politics.
Instead, Inglis spent the rest of his time doing things like assuring people that there was no secret plan to give them untested vaccinations against their will, and explaining why the energy savings from compact florescent bulbs mean that government buildings will spend less of their energy bill on lighting. Viewed in one way, it’s very entertaining to watch a mainstream conservative squirm in front of the extremists he depends on to ensure his reelection every two years. Viewed in another way though, it’s extremely disheartening to know that these people’s irrational ideas and conspiratorial mindset can send what should be a levelheaded and much-needed debate down into a rabbit hole of nonsense.
To put it another way, it’s an interesting commentary on American society that so many of us are so privileged and well-fed that our main political concerns could be so abstract and detached from our everyday lives.
After Inglis’ remarks, there was a short time left for questions from the crowd, but the crowd wasn’t really interested in asking questions so much as making statements. They dressed him down for every issue where, in their estimation, he wasn’t sufficiently conservative. Toward the end, a woman shouted that she was afraid of Obama. When Inglis asked why, the crowd erupted into shouts. Through the noise Inglis heard someone suggest that he should watch Glenn Beck—a conservative television personality who recently made headlines after making a joke about poisoning House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In response to the suggestion, Inglis countered that people should “turn that television off when he comes on.†That comment brought down the loudest boos of the night, and after the noise had subsided a bit Inglis explained his suggestion saying of Beck, “he’s trading on fear.â€
For me, that exchange with Inglis and the crowd encapsulated what the entire night had really been about.
When you boil it down to its essence, what happened last Thursday night was that Inglis found himself a mainstream conservative in a room full of people who hate mainstream conservatives almost as much as they hate liberals. The crowd he faced at the meeting was the best example I’ve seen so far of the rift that’s been consuming the GOP both nationally and locally since President Obama’s election. These people are angry, and any GOP leaders who don’t seem to be able to match their level of vitriol soon find themselves targets of the same conspiratorial rage that dogs President Obama and the Democrats. What the extreme right is engaged in is a good old-fashioned ideological purge, and before it’s all said and done, plenty of mainstream conservative and moderate Republicans are going to find themselves politicians without a party.
To his credit, Rep. Inglis seems to have no interest in playing their game. He could easily give these people exactly what they want. When they ask why he opposes the President’s health care bill, rather than give a nuanced, reasoned answer, he could simply call it a “socialistic attempt to undermine the American, free-market way of life†or some other jingoistic bit of reactionary garbage. He could pander to the lowest common denominator at every possible opportunity. He could take a page out of his old friend Senator Jim DeMint’s book and shift so far to the right that there’s no room left for anyone to out-crazy him. No Republican from South Carolina is going to challenge one of their own from the left, and even the moderates who don’t like the more extreme conservatives in the GOP still fall in line come Election Day rather than vote for a Democrat.
Because of his refusal to toe the ultraconservative line, Inglis is facing challengers in the GOP primary in 2010, and his reelection is anything but certain. Rather than move to the right to cut off his opponents line of attack, Inglis is standing by his mainstream conservative stance on most issues. While I disagree with nearly every issue position Inglis has ever taken, he has managed to win my respect for standing up to the extremists in his own party even though it could cost him his office in the process. That takes character, and there are plenty of politicians in similar circumstances who’ve read the GOP tea leaves and moved themselves further right to the suit the reactionaries.
After everything was over and the crowd had started to clear out, I walked outside and found Rep. Inglis listening to someone who seemed all worked up over something I couldn’t quite make out. Inglis seemed to be listening pretty intently to what the man had to say, and he didn’t seem to notice the woman shouting at him from the parking lot. “God bless Glenn Beck†the woman brayed, “and God bless Sean Hannityâ€. It was a fitting coda to the spectacle I’d just witnessed. I laughed a little bit, shook my head, and walked towards the car.
Christopher George is a local blogger. You can read more of his stuff at Flying Oskar.
Christopher George
As usual, very insightful. I happen to agree with Mr. Inglis on the turning off the tv or radio when those political opinion shows come on. I understand that they have the right, given to them by our constitution, to voice their opinions, but we also have the right, as citizens under that same constitution to not have to listen to what they have to say. I fail to comprehend why people take what these guys have to say as gospel
I have long been a republican, but never hard right. If that is where my party of choice is heading, I will be voting otherwise come next election. As a moderate, with appreciation for fiscal conservatism, I fail to understand the appeal of choosing to believe rhetoric displayed by the people at that event. All I can think is they believe out of fear, fear of the unknown, fear fed to them by above mentioned pundits, who are given way too much credit for their supposed wisdom, who think it is their right to tell others how to think.
On the left side, the same is going on, as those who are questioning current proposed policies are not really being given respect for asking some good questions about these programs, funding for them, long term ramifications, wondering why waiting to hammer out fine details is not being considered, and what other options may be. I am not seeing answers on these from that camp, and that bothers me.
When it comes to our economy, our health care, and our nations environment and infrastructure, we need to be wise on this and not rush a thing. We should learn from the recent lessons of the past, with the “stimulus” packages which stimulated nothing but the need to pay that money back by we the taxpayer. As has already been demonstrated over the past several months, throwing money at a problem doesn’t solve it. I get the feeling that the health care proposal is too hastily put together, too costly and will be far less efficient then our current system. I don’t see the harm in waiting to make sure that a good compromise on this is hammered out. But that’s just my opinion.
Of course I get the feeling that we moderates are left out in the cold on what we think on all of this, and we are getting fed up as well. We may not be saying much, till election time comes, and we get to vote again.
I think it’s a bit early to judge federal stimulus a failure. If you must, it would be helpful to include your thoughts on what might have worked better. And if you solution is tax cuts, please be prepared to defend it. We tax-cut our way into this mess — the recession and budget deficit both — and I’d argue the per-capita stimulus of reduced marginal rates on business and individuals isn’t enough to make a difference. Especially considering the majority of us don’t pay the full marginal rate anyway.
Deep recessions are self-perpetuating — people stop spending, companies fire employees, confidence plunges. Companies won’t hire until spending resumes, people won’t spend until they have jobs and more more money. Fiscal stimulus as a corrective action is not radical or even particularly liberal economics. I’m surprised and more than a little amused by those who claim — or seem to claim, because they propose no alternative — that doing nothing is somehow a better solution.
The only long-term solution is jobs. When I see the private sector generating kind of jobs growth we need without government intervention, I’ll applaud and endorse “market-based” solutions. That hasn’t happened for over a decade, by the way.
George, why are you calling these people extremists? Because they don’t trust the government anymore(An executive branch run by the same financiers who ruined the country and are now bailing out their friends?)? Because they have concerns about congress shoving harmful bills down our throats(Socializing medicine because 10% of the population have no health coverage we got now to be all covered under one single plan, do you know how ugly such plan is causing havoc in England?)? Because they think that the H1N1 vaccine hasn’t been tested properly? (Remeber 1970′s mass vaccination and people dying from the vaccine itself?).
I can go on and on and on, but it is just digusting to see how people like you want to discredit concerned american citizens for sharing their concerns with their representatives.
Oh je, the real extremists are out there to harm, shut down the debate and discreit everybody who opposes the harmful Obama agenda. You seem to be another cheerleader for such an Agenda, great work!
Well James, let’s just see what I can make of this mess of yours.
“George, why are you calling these people extremists?”
Because they are, and they clearly demonstrate as much every time they open their mouths.
“Because they don’t trust the government anymore”
I always find it funny when people say this. You trust the government to deliver your mail, provide and maintain the roads you drive on, print the currency you use to purchase goods and services, pay you your social security when you retire, pay for your medical expenses when you retire, put out fires, arrest criminals, regulate interstate commerce, and the list goes on and on and on.
If you right-wingers hate the government so much, why not just refuse any and all government services? If your house catches fire, why not put it out yourself? Refuse to use evil government currency and return to the barter system. There’s any number of things you people could to demonstrate your disdain for the evil government. Personally, I’m just sick of all the bitching about it. If you really want to make a statement, put your money where your mouth is.
“Socializing medicine because 10% of the population have no health coverage we got now to be all covered under one single plan, do you know how ugly such plan is causing havoc in England?”
There are so many things wrong in this statement, I can’t begin to address them all. If you want, you can get the details on the health care bill for yourself here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/
It’s not a “single-payer” system (though many of us wish it was), and nobody will force you to change your current plan if you don’t want to. Of course, none of this is going to get through to you, but you can’t fault a guy for trying.
“Because they think that the H1N1 vaccine hasn’t been tested properly? ”
So you believe there’s a secret government plan to force Americans to take an untested vaccine? Ok, now I’m asking myself why I’m even bothering with you.
“I can go on and on and on, but it is just digusting to see how people like you want to discredit concerned american citizens for sharing their concerns with their representatives.”
I’m not out to “discredit concerned American citizens”, I’m out to mock uninformed nutjobs who believe whacked-out conspiracy theories and use those nutty theories to further an extremist agenda.
Christopher —
TRUST the government with “services”? Hey man, what choice do we have. The government runs the postal system, the road system, dumb-down our children through inadequate school systems (YES–we can so far choose private schools, I’ll agree), print money whenever they need it (and probably soon tax us at an unbelievably high rate), take thousands of dollars from my salary toward “my social security” but give me back only hundreds, and on it goes. REFUSE all government services? Come on–you’re illogical. The government wants to control EVERY service and take away rights. The current president is NOT interested in upholding the constitution OR defending our nation….which is almost his SOLE JOB! No…he wants to stick his nose in every area of American life and TAKE US DOWN. You are far too naive about our leaders.
Where did you get these wacky ideas?
The government DOES run the postal service, and it DOES have free market competition from UPS and FedEx and all kinds of other groups. Having a nationalized postal service hasn’t stopped anyone from offering an alternative, and I’d say the U.S. mail system works quite well.
The existence of public libraries hasn’t destroyed book stores, either.
Where did you get the idea that the government wants to control health care? There are TENS OF MILLIONS of people who either can’t afford, or simply aren’t eligible for, private health insurance. There’s no reason it can’t be made affordable, or that they can’t be covered, except that the insurance companies aren’t presently obligated to keep their prices reasonable or include people who are already sick. Are you saying you oppose the government addressing these issues?
As far as Obama not defending this country, I’d point out that he actually sent MORE troops to Afghanistan, which — in case you forgot — is where Osama Bin Laden was last seen, and there the forces most hostile to America are based. Not Iraq, which has NEVER, EVER attacked us on our own soil. Obama actually sends troops to the place where our enemies are, and he’s failing to protect us? That doesn’t make sense, does it?
As far as upholding the Constitution, in what way is he not doing so? Be specific.
Hi Steve,
The free market competition you refer to is quasi-competition. It is illegal for anyone other than the post office to deliver “mail” items to boxes marked “US Mail”, therefore prohibiting competition in the “mail” market. The Supreme Court upheld this in 1981.
http://openjurist.org/453/us/114/united-states-postal-service-v-council-of-greenburgh-civic-associations
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/39C4.txt
Conservatist: True enough, but that’s a relatively minor point, don’t you think? My wife gets TONS of stuff delivered via UPS. Not being able to leave it in our mailbox proper hasn’t stopped this. I mean, if I understand what you’re saying, it’s just a matter of the mailbox marking preventing other groups from using that specific box, which does nothing to hinder delivery in any real sense. I do get what you’re saying, but it’s kind of a weak point against the idea that the private market can’t compete with a government service.
I actually think Conservatist makes a relatively major point. The “mail” market (as much as it exists) is different than the “parcel” market which is what you are talking about with UPS and FedEx.
I’m sure someone will say that “you can use UPS or FedEx to mail a letter or Christman card if you want” but I’m just talking in practical everyday terms. You have multiple guys in the business of parcel delivery (UPSm FedEx, DHL, etc) but only one in the letter business (USPS).
And as a conservative it’s not a big deal to me whether or not the USPS has competition. There are bigger fish to fry out there. Not to mention, establishing a Postal Service is something the Constitution actually says the federal government can do.
I have wondered from time to time if anyone has ever tried what Kramer did in one episode of Seinfeld–opting out of mail delivery completely!
Matt: But people DO use FedEx to deliver regular mail every day. It’s the standard in the business world for getting important documents to people, and I used it regularly when I was a magazine editor.
People don’t generally use it for things that can be delivered less urgently –Christmas cards — because of price issues, but that’s not the USPS’s fault. FedEx isn’t set up to deliver low-priority mail — they could, and they could do so cheaply — but they don’t want to compete in a low-profit margin business.
It’s also worth noting that the USPS delivers parcels too, and much less expensively than FedEx or UPS. It’s no different than regular mail, except for the mail box thing. Yet those businesses are thriving when it comes to delivering parcels, even though they have lower-cost, socialized competition. Why? Because they offer something the Postal Service doesnt: speed.
And were the USPS to go away, prices would skyrocket for regular mail delivery because US mail isn’t set up to make a profit. For it to be worth FedEx’s time to carry standard mail, it would need to see a real return for their investors. Socialized mail delivery hasn’t done a thing to stop competition in this sector, and it works perfectly fine for most people’s needs.
Which is exactly what has happened to health care in countries with universal coverage. People who want to opt out of the public plan can — as many as 8% do in England — but the basics are there. It may not be as fast as the private sector, just like the USPS isn’t as fast as FedEx, but it’s still affordable and reliable. There will, I’m sure, be a thriving market of insurance companies who will provide optional services the government doesn’t.
Some of what you say is true, the original comments about it being “quasi-competition” is accurate. In fact it’s what people are taught in business school.
I disagree with your predictions on healthcare, but that’s a different story.
Wow Miss Lonna, you’re funny!
“Hey man, what choice do we have. The government runs the postal system, the road system”
Steve already handled this one so I’ll just leave it alone.
“dumb-down our children through inadequate school systems”
I find this one particularly funny. Remind me again which side of the ideological divide usually loses its mind every time someone suggests we increase school funding?
“(and probably soon tax us at an unbelievably high rate)”
Well, leaving aside your “probably”, you do realize that right now unless you make at least six figures, your income taxes haven’t been this low since 1916 right? In fact the top bracket is still lower now than it was for 7 out of the 8 years that the Reagan was President. Right now the top rate is 35%; under 6 of the 8 years Reagan was President it was 50%. So I guess what my question would be is: Do you think “The Gipper” was a socialist too?
“REFUSE all government services? Come on–you’re illogical.”
Why am I illogical in asking that those who claim to hate government so much to refuse to partake of its services?
If you think government is so bad, then instead of bitching about it all the time, why not put your money where your mouth is? Send back those Social Security checks, refuse that Medicare, use UPS–though you may not want to considering they’re a union company–instead of the USPS, take your kids out of government schools, send them to private colleges–none of those evil “state” colleges.
There’s a whole list of things you can do to show your true convictions. In my experience though, you people have no interest in that sort of thing. I believe in Texas they call that, “all hat, no cattle”.
“The current president is NOT interested in upholding the constitution OR defending our nation….which is almost his SOLE JOB! No…he wants to stick his nose in every area of American life and TAKE US DOWN.”
Do you have any examples, or do you prefer slandering people without backing up your charges?
Chris and Steve: I might add that USPS delivers more mail at lower cost than any other developed country, and its satisfaction scores equal its private competitors. Medicare’s primary issue is payments to providers, not organizational efficiency. I’m continually amused at the Medicare beneficiaries decrying the evils of “government-run” health care.
How dare you say I bitch all the time–you have no clue about me as an individual. I have strong moral values and take responsibility for myself and my actions. The left beieves that all conservatives are unfair and selfish, based on irrational and uninformed assumptions about those who simply do not agree with them. I realize our tax rate is low–NOW…but just wait. Taxpayers cannot support the government’s continual, major spending-sprees and bail-outs; adding governmnet-run health care will be the undoing of this nation’s economy. Finally, because one lives in TX doesn’t mean one wears ANY hat. Hope you can find a hat BIG enough. Yeah, I know-bitch, bitch, bitch….
“Some of what you say is true, the original comments about it being “quasi-competition†is accurate.”
If only part of what I’m saying is true, what’s not true?
The reason it’s “quasi-competition” isn’t because of the USPS, it’s because the private sector has opted not to compete. It’s not that socialized mail delivery has shut down the free market, but rather that the free market has failed to deliver a product to even try to compete because it’s not as profitable as the niche market.
True competition isn’t being prevented by anyone, and if the best argument that it is comes from not being able to use the same mail boxes, that’s some weak sauce. People can have two mailboxes if it’s that important.
Actually the private sector is not allowed by law to compete with the sending and delivery of letters. UPS and FedEx are only allowed to handle this type of mail if it is deemed “extremely urgent”. Plus the USPS also dictates to private competators like UPS and FedEx the minimum they are allowed to charge for urgent delivery of letters.
But this is really a stupid thing to be arguing about anyway.
James: You know what’s “disgusting”? When people use false information to support arguments.
“An executive branch run by the same financiers who ruined the country and are now bailing out their friends?” Who would that be exactly? And what does it have to do with Inglis’ position on health care?
“Socializing medicine because 10% of the population have no health coverage”: Actually, it’s around 15 percent of the total population, and 20 percent of workers. That doesn’t even begin to account for those who are under-insured on high-deductible plans that are useless for anything but catastrophe. And the most recent numbers we have don’t reflect the massive amount of newly uninsured people who lost their coverage as a result of the economic downturn.
Never mind that no one is “socializing” anything — that’s a scare word, and a real socialist would laugh at the idea that the current health care reform even remotely resembles a socialist model — what’s actually under debate is the addition of a public plan to compete with free market plans. What percentage of America has to be uninsured for you to feel comfortable with the government offering a plan to cover those that can’t afford insurance?
“do you know how ugly such plan is causing havoc in England?”: Very little, actually. Ask practically anyone from the U.K. about it. England has had a National Health Service — universal health care — since 1948, and it costs a mere fraction of the nation’s GDP — around $164 billion in 2008 — to provide coverage to 49,138,831 people in England. (We spent more than that bailing out just four banks under the Bush-created TARP.)
No one is prevented from having private health care in England — you can get it there, just like you can here — yet only 8 percent of the nation opts for private health insurance. What kind of “havoc” is it causing when anyone who wants to can opt-out? Do you actually know, or are you just parroting something you heard Glenn Beck say without actually backing it up?
“I can go on and on and on, but it is just digusting to see how people like you want to discredit concerned american citizens for sharing their concerns with their representatives.”
Yet YOU are criticizing Chris for sharing HIS concerns about how the public is wildly misinformed on some basic facts. He’s a concerned citizen, and you are calling his views “disgusting” because you don’t agree with them. Never mind that YOUR “FACTS” ARE WRONG, and even a simple Google search would reveal this. I’d examine that if I were in your shoes.
It seems like a miniscule point but I’m impressed by the general lack of common sense displayed by Christopher George.
Is it really necessary to point out that the “green” fluorescent” bulbs contain mercury which is listed as an environmental hazard by the EPA?
“Is it really necessary to point out that the “green†fluorescent†bulbs contain mercury which is listed as an environmental hazard by the EPA?”
I got this in less than 2 minutes with a simple Google search. The info is straight from the EPA’s web site. You can download the entire report here: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf
For the sake of brevity though, here are the bullet points taken straight from the document.
“CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing – an average of 4 milligrams. By
comparison, older thermometers contain about 500 milligrams of mercury – an amount equal to the mercury in
125 CFLs.”
“Most makers of light bulbs have reduced mercury in their fluorescent lighting products. Thanks to technology advances and a commitment from members of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, the average mercury content in CFLs has dropped at least 20 percent in the past year. Some manufacturers have even made further reductions, dropping mercury content to 1.4 – 2.5 milligrams per light bulb. ”
“…if all 290 million CFLs sold in 2007 were sent to a landfill (versus recycled, as a worst case) – they would add 0.16 metric tons, or 0.16 percent, to U.S. mercury emissions caused by humans.”
“Electricity use is the main source of mercury emissions in the U.S. CFLs use less electricity than incandescent lights, meaning CFLs reduce the amount of mercury into the environment. As shown in the table below, a 13-watt, 8,000-rated-hour-life CFL (60-watt equivalent; a common light bulb type) will save 376 kWh over its lifetime, thus avoiding 4.5 mg of mercury. If the bulb goes to a landfill, overall emissions savings would drop a little, to 4.0 mg. EPA recommends that CFLs are recycled where possible, to maximize mercury savings.”
So there you have it Ben, CFL’s actually reduce the amount of mercury present in the environment. And if you have an older thermostat, you already have as much mercury present in your home as 125 CFL’s.
That’s the funny thing about that old conservative talking point about “common sense”. It’s pretty common, but it never makes that much sense.
If your response to Ben’s comment is emblematic of your honesty in discourse then no one should read your blog. The second half of the report you refer to above devotes 334 words to explaining the extraordinary efforts that must be undertaken when a CFL is broken in your home. While I agree that this is a distraction from talking about healthcare I am, to say the least, disappointed in your disingenuity in dealing with this side-issue. If I can’t trust you in something so objective as properly referencing a report how can I trust you in a subjective debate on healthcare?
“The extraordinary efforts that must be undertaken when a CFL is broken in your home” …
You are aware that CFLs are the basically the same thing as regular fluorescent lights, right? The same kind that are used in homes and offices all over the world? They’re just more compact. And the clean-up for both is the same.
So let’s examine this claim that the clean-up is “extraordinary,” from the exact same guide that Chris linked to.
1. Open windows, have people leave the room, turn off ventilation.
2. Clean hard surfaces with a damp paper towel, not a broom. Place broken pieces in sealed plastic bag. Use tape to pick up any smaller glass fragments, as you would with any glass break.
3. If you have a rug, vacuum the area where the glass fell, and if it’s the kind of vacuum that has a bag, throw away the bag in the same plastic bag you put the pieces of the bulb. Use tape to pick up any small glass fragments.
4. Throw away bag in outside trash (it’s no more toxic than most of the stuff that ends up in the landfill, like old TVs and computers). Wash your hands.
5. Open a window the next few times you vacuum, just in case something gets stirred up.
That’s only slightly more of a process than would be involved in cleaning up any glass break, and roughly the same process as what you’d do if you accidentally spilled, say, nail polish remover, which is also quite toxic (unless you feel that trichloroethylene, benzene, xylene, trichloroethane and acetone are safer for you than a tiny amount of mercury).
Do you see why this comes across as fearmongering? You make it sound like you’d have to call in a Hazmat team, when in fact all that’s required is opening a window, tying a not in the garbage bag and putting the trash outside for normal collection.
I thought that once chided for selective editing there might be more effort made to better reflect the simplest facts. Conveniently omitted from the above litany is the govenment’s warning paragraph on clothing and bedding. Specifically it states that any clothing or bedding that comes in contact with the glass or powder should be thrown away and not washed lest it contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage. If a vacumm cleaner is used at some point in the cleaning process the vacuum bag must also be discarded in a sealed plastic bag. Also omitted is the warning that the contaminated waste may be prohibited from disposal in ordinary trash. There are other material omissions that I will not continue to site.
Personally, I do not air out my room, leave the area and turn off the A/C when I break a drinking glass. Most often I quickly sweep up the big pieces and vacuum the rest. Nor do I immediately discard the remains in sealed mason jars and/or bags. I most certainly don’t discard my clothing or bedding due to contamination. I may be picky but I consider it an “extraordinary effort” when I have to throw out my contaminated clothing and bedding due to a bulb breaking.
Further, the writer’s comparison of mercury to acetone is misleading and wrong. The OSHA exposure limit for acetone is 1000 parts per million as opposed to mercury’s 80 parts per BILLION. While undesireable, acetone is indeed safer for you than tiny amounts of mercury. This is probably why you can buy nail polish remover at the corner drug store but you can’t get a jug of mecury at the local Depot. A little research would be priceless.
My house currently has one fluorescent light bulb but at least two dozen incandescent ones. Risk of breakage is directly related to the opportunity for breakage which is related to the number used and how they are used. Office building bulbs are most often nine feet above in a ceiling fixture and not sitting on my nightstand. Honest discourse would take these facts into account.
I am not writing to argue the merits of incandescent or fluorescent lightbulbs. I am arguing that factual and intellectually honest statements are needed in both the healthcare and CFL debates. Even when it would be easy to have them I don’t see simple facts and honesty in open display in much of what is being written in this blog.
Nathan: I’m not “selectively editing” anything, I just didn’t reprint every single warning in the PDF, instead focusing on the part you were concerned with: The clean up. The link is above if anyone wants to read it.
The warnings for CFL cleanups aren’t significantly more threatening than half the stuff under your kitchen sink. Read the warnings on oven cleaner sometime, never mind the warnings about mixing ammonia and bleach.
And, again, you’re trying to find things to be afraid of here. I’ve never had a light bulb break on my bedding, much less as CFL, and I don’t see what the problem is. If I spilled ANYTHING toxic on my bedsheets, I would probably want to get rid of them.
There are tons of toxic things in most houses, so why is this one extremely unlikely situation so worrying to you?
What you see as “dishonest” is just a normal reaction to something that’s really not a big deal when you keep it in perspective. Car batteries are pretty toxic, yet you probably aren’t demanding that someone is repressing the truth and acting dishonest about the dangers of exploding Evereadys.
What’s your core argument? That one might be mildly inconvenienced in cleaning up a CFL break properly? That there’s some conspiracy of people who just aren’t that worried about it?
Kudos to Rep. Inglis for having the courage to stand up to hate-mongers like Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs, and the mobs they incite.
I am a registered Democratic (and New Yorker), but was raised by a staunch Republican who always preached (and practiced) the credo, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it”. While my father and I did a lot of disagreeing during his lifetime, I always held a deep respect for Republicans of his stripe, who were true conservatives (neither extreme right nor left) and patriots, and whose values and behavior reflected love of our country more than fear and hatred for “the other”. I am greatly troubled by the decreasing number of politicians on either side of the aisle who measure up to this standard.
I wish more of our politicians, media outlets, and ordinary citizens would follow Rep. Inglis’ example of promoting a reasoned national discourse, and supporting our government, despite our disagreements.
Christopher, I like how you defend Inglis as being acceptable because he is the non -DeMint. Are there any positions that Inglis has or would have voted differently than DeMint? Isn’t that the bottom line?
At least with DeMint (the Jesse Helms of the new millennium), he puts it all out there so that the rest of the country can see what an idiot he is. I’d rather have that then the moderate Republican, who in the end, will vote lock-step with the far right.
At no point did I call Inglis acceptable. He has never, and will never, get my vote, my endorsement, or my support in any way.
“Are there any positions that Inglis has or would have voted differently than DeMint? Isn’t that the bottom line?”
That is the bottom line. There aren’t a whole lot of practical differences between the two, but Inglis does have a more moderate voting record overall. I have all the congressional votes sent to my e-mail weekly through the MegaVote system. You can sign up here: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/megavote/ It’s a pretty good way to keep up with that sort of thing.
Off the top of my head one difference between Inglis and DeMint was that Inglis was one of the few GOP congressmen who voted against the troop surge in ’07. Both our SC Senators voted for the surge.
Does that make Inglis acceptable to me as a representative? Absolutely not! Still, it’s unfair to paint him with the same brush as a reactionary like DeMint.
Thanks for the reply Christopher —
one thing I respect about you is that you give a honest retort, armed with facts instead of rhetoric.
I think that as a former South Carolinian, I often get despondent on how slowly things are moving back there. (I’ve been away 14 years). I often say I moved away for three reasons, (1) the weather was too hot & humid (2) blood sucking mosquitoes, (3) right wing fundamentalist Republicans. And that you could probably put 2 & 3 together.
But it always a matter of relativity. In Spartanburg, I was one of the most liberal people I knew, but here In Portland, Oregon, I tend to be one of the more conservative people. (It’s taught me a bit about perspective and tolerance). But I can tell you, it’s a lot easier being a bit conservative in a progressive liberal city.
Thanks for the compliment gb.
“In Spartanburg, I was one of the most liberal people I knew, but here In Portland, Oregon, I tend to be one of the more conservative people.”
I had a very similar experience when I moved out of SC for a while. The area I was in was very progressive, and while I may not have been exactly conservative there, I was much closer to the center there than I am here.
Still it was, as you say, easier being a bit more moderate in a liberal place than it is being liberal in a conservative place.
Same here, although a bit backwards. I felt like a moderate in Asheville. Here, I’m evidently on the far-left fringe. Who knew?
We switched all our light bulbs to the newer bulbs. They produce less heat, do an excellent job in keeping my home lit and have reduced my monthly energy costs. The fast that they last several times longer then incandescent light bulbs means that they will not be filling up landfill space near as quickly.
Chris also makes an excellent point in his first rebuttal about those who moan and groan about our government yet take all that our local, state and federal government does for our benefit. It is thanks to government regulation that we have such a well run electric grid, roads that are in decent shape, regulations that ensure safer working conditions, lower pollution of air and water supplies, standards in commerce, health care, banking and a whole lot of other things we use every single day.
For the “wrongs” we have with government, we have a vast more that is done right.
It is sad that people are shouting about fringe ideas that are proven to be faulty if one just stops to look. It solves nothing, hinders dialog that can help law makers and citizens come up with workable solutions to things we feel need to be improved.
OMG am I really going to jump into this conversation?
I was at the town hall meeting Thursday and have since been trying to sum it all up in my own head. So far I’ve come up with
“Organized Ignorant Anger is a very, very bad thing.”
and
“Bob Inglis is a dumbass.”
OK…let me explain.
The government is NOT proposing that we all be forced to partake in this “public healthcare option.” OPTION being one of the three key words there.
And…no one in the government is going to force us to use one particular light bulb or another in our own homes.
There is more but I want to move on.
Anger like that which was displayed on Thursday is not helping…I couldn’t even hear what people had to say b/c the standing ovations came before the sentences were complete.
I wanted to hear! I don’t know what you’re applauding! Please save your “get a new job Inglis” comments for the election. I was at the town hall meeting to become more informed…of what Inglis thought, of what my community thinks…and I thought I MIGHT have been able to let Inglis know what I wanted him to do for me…..however the intimidation I felt from the angry crowd was way too severe for that.
Dear Angry Crowd,
Please calm down so we can all participate in this democracy we all love. It only works when we ALL get to play.
And now for the explanation of “Bob Inglis is a dumbass.”
I mean, REALLY?!?!?!? What exactly is the point of a town hall meeting if our representative has already made up his mind? He told us he was voting no on the healthcare/insurance reform bill. He also told us he HAS NOT READ THE BILL. Again…REALLY?!?!?!? I have a full time job that does not involve reading government bills. I also have a busy personal life. BUT even I have read PARTS of the bill! Bob Inglis, whose job it is to read, interpret and vote on the bills….HAS NOT READ THE BILL! This was stop #7 of 12….did he not think he should be prepared for the healthcare conversation by at least reading the bill in question? How are we supposed to trust him?
He further explained that he was voting no because there are portions of the bill which would fund abortions. HOW DOES HE KNOW? Maybe he’s correct…but again, how am I supposed to trust him when he hasn’t even read the darn bill…AND he further explained that he wasn’t going to waste his time by reading the portion about the “public option” b/c he has already decided that he is voting no since it funds abortion. HOW DOES HE KNOW? HE HASN’T READ IT AND HE’S NOT GOING TO!
Since time is apparently so valuable to him that he can’t waste it by reading bills….why is he wasting it by holding town hall meetings?
I do commend him for keeping his cool. He did not get flustered, and he was so brave to stand there in front of that angry crowd and calmly try to explain things. But why did he put himself in that position? What was the point?
Wishing I were still camping in the woods where everyone gets along and no one complains…..
Cass
Well let me first say that this is a different “James” than the first one who commented above (this is the James who just posted a comment in the Mayor Barnet article).
Anyway I’m not going to wade into the debate over healthcare and socialism. I’m just going to use the blog post as a jumping off-point about the political situation Inglis is facing.
Basically Inglis’ current political persona is that of a “moderate” Republican. Maybe not moderate in the way that those (former) New England Republican congressmen were (Inglis is still very pro-life, evangelical Presbyterian I think, etc.) but certainly more middle-of-the-road than what you’d expect from a South Carolina Republican who happens to represent one of the most conservative deep-red districts in the country. Usually Republicans representing districts that look similar to the 4th can just tow the party line on issue after issue and they are fine. But Inglis seems to invite a lot of the conservative angst against him which is interesting in that it makes him vulnerable to a primary challenge. I have often wondered why the GOP simply let him basically walk back into his seat in 2004 when they have such a deep bench in the Upstate, and why no serious challenger emerged in the 06 and 08 primaries. Now I would say that Trey Gowdy and David Thomas are serious challengers who are each “in it to win it”.
With that said I have no dog in the fight–Inglis is not the worst congressman ever, although I did vote for Corden in 2008. But I can understand why the hardcore right-wing would be so upset with him. It’s the same complaint that they have had with people like John McCain or Colin Powell–those that have the Republican label but seem to enjoy getting in the news by criticizing their own party, talking about working with Democrats, etc. I can understand why people who are conservative Republicans in a majority Republican district would expect that their Republican congressman not tell them to shut off Glenn Beck.
It’s funny we hear Republicans say that they do not want “faceless bureaucrats†making medical decisions but they have no problem with “private sector†“faceless bureaucrats†daily declining medical coverage and financially ruining good hard working people. And who says that the “private sector†is always right, do we forget failures like Long-Term Capital, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Enron, Tyco, AIG and Lehman Brothers. Of course the federal government will destroy heathcare by getting involved, Oh but wait, Medicare and Medicaid and our military men and women and the Senate and Congress get the best heathcare in the world, and oh, that’s right, its run by our federal government. I can understand why some may think that the federal government will fail, if you look at the past eight years as a current history, with failures like the financial meltdown and Katrina but the facts is they can and if we support them they will succeed.
How does shouting down to stop the conversation of the healthcare debate at town hall meetings, endears them to anyone. Especially when the organizations that are telling them where to go and what to do and say are Republicans political operatives, not real grassroots. How does shouting someone down or chasing them out like a lynch mob advanced the debate, it does not. So I think the American people will see through all of this and know, like the teabagger, the birthers, these lynch mobs types are just the same, people who have to resort to these tactics because they have no leadership to articulate what they real want. It’s easy to pickup a bus load of people who hate, and that’s all I been seeing, they hate and can’t debate. Too bad.
Sorry but I hardly believe that Medicaid offers the best in health care. I’ve been on it once upon a time. The choices offered were very limited, and many doctors now, have opted not to accept it as an insurance choice. Likely because of the arduous paper-work involved. When my daughter was trying to find a pediatrician for my granddaughter, she had a very difficult time finding one. The one that she did find is awful. They’ve had to wait four hours just to get the baby’s shots, and that is with an appointment. Getting approved for it is a royal pain in the bottom regions because you can get all the paperwork they ask for, just to have them ask for the same thing all over again.
Medi-care is not as good as it used to be either, as many folks now are having to buy second health insurance because Medicare covers less and less.
Military and Congressional health care is far superiour, and even better for members of Congress, because if I remember correctly they don’t have to pay for it, and they are exempt from social security/medicare taxes. May be wrong on that last, but I think I’m right.
I am also not sure that trading one set of bureaucrat for another is the best option. And I don’t think that using companies like Enron or Lehman Brothers aptly defines all private sector companies. These businesses got attention because they were doing things wrong and hardly represent all business in their categories. Too bad the companies who quietly do what they are designed to do don’t get any press.
Unless something a whole lot better comes along, I will be staying with my husband’s health insurance company. We’ve never had any trouble with their services whatsoever. Yeah I am paying premiums, PLUS taxes to help fund government funded health insurance already. My concern is that my health costs will go way up instead of going down if we move too quickly on the matter.
Most of the reason Medicaid isn’t as widely accepted as it once was is because the Government won’t pay the increasingly exorbitant fees that most doctors charge these days. It’s not something people talk about a lot but doctors in the U.S. are overpaid compared with their counterparts in other developed countries. For example a General Practitioner in the U.S. averages $161,000 per year. In France that same General Practitioner makes $92,000, in Canada it’s $107,000.
Specialists make $230,000 in the U.S. Specialists make $150,000 in the U.K., $161,000 in Canada, and $149,000 in France.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/how-much-do-doctors-in-other-countries-make/
Now consider that according to the World Health Organization, all these countries consistently outrank us in practically every health care measurement. Seems like somebody’s getting a raw deal.
And this is just one of many problems here regarding healthcare in the U.S., and practically all of those problems revolve around money. We spend far more per capita on health care than any other nation, yet we don’t get the same level of care. Why?
The answer is pretty simple. In the United States, health care is a business rather than a public service. We have some of the best care available anywhere in the world here, but many of us don’t have access to anything even approaching that level of care. From my point of view, that’s simply immoral.
That being said, President Obama’s solution isn’t exactly perfect in my book. I’d prefer the some form of single-payer system like every other post-industrial country in the world has. The closest we can get to that apparently is the public option available in the President’s plan. I don’t necessarily like that, but I can promise you that I’ll be the first in line to sign up for the public option if it becomes available.
Health Care costs at my old job were outrageous. I was spending a little over $300 a month to insure both myself and my daughter. The insurance wasn’t bad, but costs MUST be brought down. The public plan is the only way to put downward pressure on healthcare costs. Without it, we’ll continue to see prices skyrocket hurting both us as a people and our businesses as they struggle to compete with businesses in other countries that have the evil “socialized” medicine keeping their costs down.
Interesting point Chris, and one I hadn’t considered. Then there is the cost of staffing, and malpractice insurance which is also passed on to the patient.
It is also true that doctors and hospitals have more then once tried to cover the cost of people who don’t pay, or that spanking new MRI machine by double billing small items on bills, to insurance companies and to patients. I had surgery last year. I was in the hospital just over 24 hours. My itemized bill ran two, small font, single spaced, pages. Thankfully my insurance covered most, but geez, I don’t even know what half that stuff was.
I also agree that costs need to go down, and there is the rub with this new proposal. I am waiting to see the dollars and cents in this, a side by side comparison on how my current insurance and out of pocket expenses will compare to the new method. If I am paying less out of pocket, will that savings be offset by higher taxes? That is stuff that doesn’t seem to be discussed right now and that is a shame. I think if more people could get answers such as that, then it would be much more acceptable, or have a clearer picture so we could suggest other options.
This is by far my favorite article you’ve written. You summed up the event quite nicely and somehow managed to not go into an all out rage against these frightened, ridiculous people.
If only we really were going to a single payer, Canadian style system instead of this goofy public option that still won’t cover everyone…
As for anecdotal experience…
As someone who had been on private insurance and Medicare, I have experienced vast differences in the quality of care I have received. Under private insurance, it was a constant battle to get paper work approved. I often had to make sure I got pre-approval for any procedure, or ooops, sorry, but you’re out of luck. Also, under private insurance, I was limited on the doctors I could see. I became painfully aware when I had an outbreak of a severe skin condition, and there was only one dermatologist in my coverage area who was approved, and that doctor was totally unhelpful in solving my problem, but I had no other options.
Under Medicare, I am with a HMO. There is virtually no paperwork to complete, no pre-approvals, very little hassle. With my serious medical condition, the worse thing was the level of stress that I had to go through with private insurance, always fighting, never knowing if something would be covered. With Medicare, that stress is gone, and I can concentrate on staying healthy. That benefit is immeasurable.
What is laughable is when people say that they don’t want some bureaucrat making their healthcare decisions. Private Insurers primary purpose is the be profitable for their shareholders. That means collecting as much in premiums as possible, and providing as little coverage and care as they can get away with. A recent statistic shows that for every dollar we pay in premiums, we get half the coverage that we did 20 years ago — now close to 20% of healthcare premiums go to support the bureaucracy and and share-holder profits. (In Medicare, it is only 4%)
Yes, we have the most expensive health care system in the world, but we also fail to cover 47 millions people, and we are far down on the list of quality of care in many quantifiable areas, such as life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.
I don’t doubt that if I had stayed with private Insurance 10 years ago, I would not be alive today. Would I trade my Medicare for private insurance, not if my life depended on it, and it does.
Sorry you’ve had such a bad experience with your former insurance carrier. I have never had such a problem with mine for myself or for my family. The only thing I had to get pre-approval for with my surgery last year was for my leave of absence and the disability insurance that I had through my job, that I would be receiving during my recovery. Even that went smoothly.
Medicare and Medicaid do offer good service, but there are downsides as well. Neither private insurance or public is perfect. I don’t know if there is such a thing. I do know we can do better in both private and public sectored healthcare. Let us hope the final solution offers the best of both, not the worst.
Private insurance can be good for the occasional doctor visit, or even health emergency. For chronic health conditions, it fails miserably. I’ve calculated that my medical expenses for the past 15 years have been well over a million dollars. No private corporate business model can support that, and as a for-profit they have no incentive to do so. (As a former Certified Management Accountant, I fully understand their reasoning, it is simply not sustainable for them).
Private Insurers are not willing to pool the healthy with those with chronic illnesses. It simply is not supported by their business model. One thing that I hope comes out of the Healthcare bill is to force private insurers to cover those with chronic conditions at a comparable rate. Of course, since they still have to earn their 20% to cover cost and shareholder dividends, that means everyone’s rate will go up. And that still would not stop the denial of claims.
I have suffered from allergies for a long time, which has escalated to asthma. I see my doctor regularly, who has worked with me over the past couple of years to find the best options for my health issue short and long term. My insurance has helped.
My youngest has episodes related from a bout with Mono a couple of years ago. It is frustrating pinning dealing with symptoms of chronic fatigue when they flare up, but our insurance has never turned down a test to help ensure the best care options. After we meet out annual deductible, the out of pocket costs are quite manageable.
My out of pocket expenses last year, including deductibles and health insurance premiums was just over 10k. That was because we had two major surgeries in our family. Our medical cost would have been triple that if we had not had health insurance.
We have yet to be turned down for care. When we had our pending surgeries, approval from our insurance company was prompt. When I was asked to have a second mammogram last year, my insurance company paid on both claims.
I am sure everyone’s experience is different. I have been under public health care with medic-aid. True it was over a decade ago, but I don’t ever want to go back to that kind of medical coverage. The experience was hardly one i’d recommend.
With Medicare, (government run healthcare), my total out of pocket costs last year including additional premiums, deductibles, etc al. were under $2000. My total medical cost were about would have been over $75,000. I was not turned down for any consultations with doctors or specialist that I requested, and additional optional tests such as a bone scan and colonoscopy, all were done a few weeks after a request were made.
Again, Medicare is doing a great job for me. For most people pre-existing conditions, private, non employer insurance is non-existent (just see what happens if you loose your job), and even if so, the premiums would be prohibitive.
You had over 10K out of pocket, and you’re not out in the street clamoring for single-payer? You know I respect you Sylvie, and I don’t mean this to be insulting, but that’s just insane to me.
You do realize that in ANY other developed country, you’d have exactly ZERO out of pocket don’t you? Health care should be a public service, not a private industry.
I wanted to add that my sister (who had a chronic health condition) employer has just shut down her the plant where she works. If she does not find another job before her cobra runs out, and she had a major illness, she will loose everything she owns, and be left in poverty. At her age, she will probably not be able to recover from this.
Private Insurance cannot solve these problems.
FYI: Bob Inglis is the lead-off interview on Hardball with Chris Matthews tonight. Was on at 5pm but re-air is at 7pm and 12am.
Not going to be an interview that goes over well with the right-wing. Sounds like but-for the public option and fear of taxpayer-funding of abortion, Inglis would be open to supporting a Democrat healthcare bill. Plus Chris Matthews basically endorses Inglis. That can’t be good for getting support from the right-wing base, now can it?
Throw The Healthcare Obstructionist Out!
More than two thirds of the American people want a single payer health care system. And if they cant have a single payer system 76% of all Americans want a strong government-run public option on day one (85% of democrats, 71% of independents, and 60% republicans). Basically everyone.
We have the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed world. And the most costly. Costing over twice as much as every other county. Conservative estimates are that over 120,000 of you dies each year in America from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don’t die from. Rich, middle class, and poor a like. Insured and uninsured. Men, women, children, and babies. This is what being 37th in quality of healthcare means.
I know that many of you are angry and frustrated that REPUBLICANS! In congress are dragging their feet and trying to block TRUE healthcare reform. What republicans want is just a taxpayer bailout of the DISGRACEFUL GREED DRIVEN PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance industry, and the DISGRACEFUL GREED DRIVEN PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare industry. A trillion dollar taxpayer funded private health insurance bailout is all you really get without a robust government-run public option available on day one. Co-OP’s ARE NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A GOVERNMENT-RUN PUBLIC OPTION. They are a fraud being pushed by the GREED DRIVEN PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance industry that is KILLING YOU!
YOU CANT HAVE AN INSURANCE MANDATE WITHOUT A ROBUST PUBLIC OPTION. MANDATING PRIVATE FOR PROFIT HEALTH INSURANCE AS YOUR ONLY CHOICE WOULD BE A DISASTER. AND UNETHICAL, CORRUPT, AND MORALLY REPUGNANT. AND PROBABLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS WELL.
These industries have been slaughtering you and your loved ones like cattle for decades for profit. Including members of congress and their families. These REPUBLICANS are FOOLS!
Republicans and their traitorous allies have been trying to make it look like it’s President Obama’s fault for the delays, and foot dragging. But I think you all know better than that. President Obama inherited one of the worst government catastrophes in American history from these REPUBLICANS! And President Obama has done a brilliant job of turning things around, and working his heart out for all of us.
But Republicans think you are just a bunch of stupid, idiot, cash cows with short memories. Just like they did under the Bush administration when they helped Bush and Cheney rape America and the rest of the World.
But you don’t have to put up with that. And this is what you can do. The Republicans below will be up for reelection on November 2, 2010. Just a little over 13 months from now. And many of you will be able to vote early. So pick some names and tell their voters that their representatives (by name) are obstructing TRUE healthcare reform. And are sellouts to the insurance and medical lobbyist.
Ask them to contact their representatives and tell them that they are going to work to throw them out of office on November 2, 2010, if not before by impeachment, or recall elections. Doing this will give you something more to do to make things better in America. And it will make you feel better too.
There are many resources on the internet that can help you find people to call and contact. For example, many social networking sites can be searched by state, city, or University. Be inventive and creative. I can think of many ways to do this. But be nice. These are your neighbors. And most will want to help.
I know there are a few democrats that have been trying to obstruct TRUE healthcare reform too. But the main problem is the Bush Republicans. Removing them is the best thing tactically to do. On the other hand. If you can easily replace a democrat obstructionist with a supportive democrat, DO IT!
You have been AMAZING!!! people. Don’t loose heart. You knew it wasn’t going to be easy saving the World.
God Bless You
jacksmith — Working Class
I REST MY CASE (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/)
Republican Senators up for re-election in 2010.
* Richard Shelby of Alabama
* Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
* John McCain of Arizona
* Mel Martinez of Florida
* Johnny Isakson of Georgia
* Mike Crapo of Idaho
* Chuck Grassley of Iowa
* Sam Brownback of Kansas
* Jim Bunning of Kentucky
* David Vitter of Louisiana
* Kit Bond of Missouri
* Judd Gregg of New Hampshire
* Richard Burr of North Carolina
* George Voinovich of Ohio
* Tom Coburn of Oklahoma
* Jim DeMint of South Carolina
* John Thune of South Dakota
* Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas
* Bob Bennett of Utah
Ok, I am a republican and I am not so sure that the current proposal is the answer. I have a lot of questions, and am having a difficult time finding answers. I am also quite leery of the rush job that is being put on this. Health care is a big deal. It affects all of us, those of us who are uninsured and those of us, like me who have insurance AND pay taxes for programs like medicare and medic-aid. I already feel like I am paying twice for health care, and has already been noted, out of pocket expenses can add up.
While I agree that we need reform, I don’t understand why our government isn’t willing to slow down and make sure they do this right, that they find a way to make sure that it isn’t something that hinders innovation and freedom by doctors to care for patients, that makes it affordable to everyone, that we reign in abuse, and consider limiting or eliminating free care to non-citizens, that it does something to cut back on some of the needless litigation doctors and hospitals have to go through, again reducing costs; that people are still left with choices, in choosing thier care, the level of care where they get it and who gives it to them. That costs, in the form of taxes doesn’t further strap our economy. That research is still funded and encouraged, that there is an assurance that everyone helps pay for this, including members of congress, who right now are exempt from having to pay a lot of things we voters have to pay.
I am of the mind that it will take a bi-partisan solution, that compromise will be needed, that input from citizens, health care providers, insurance companies, accountants, administrators etc. all have something to bring to the table to make our health care future much brighter.
What we have really isn’t as bad as in many other countries that have nothing even close to what we have in quality of service, despite what we are being told. I am thankful for the fact that just about anyone can walk into a hospital and be taken care of, whether you have insurance or not.
This is the third time I’ve read in this discussion where you’ve used the “too fast” meme. I’ve been leaving it alone until now, but this Republican talking point is just BEGGING for an answer.
The “too fast” soundbite has been used extensively by Republicans opposed to the reform bill. Its a political tactic plain and simple. They know–though apparently their supporters don’t–that the longer they stall the bill the less likely it is to pass. It’s a simple momentum-killing tactic, nothing more nothing less.
The argument itself is pretty weak. FDR passed 15 MAJOR pieces of legislation in his first 100 days, Reagan passed his MASSIVE tax cut legislation 5 months after taking office. These were defining political moments, and they happened very early into the new administration. Somehow, I think we’ll be ok if we pass a health care proposal that’s been being kicked around in some form or another in Washington for the last 15 years, despite the pointless claims of some that it’s “too fast”.
As far as details on the plan. No offense, but if you’re having a hard time finding details, that sounds like YOUR problem. The info is out there for anyone who wants it. I would suggest starting here: http://www.healthreform.gov/ That is, by no means, the only source out there though, a simple Google search should help with the rest. I’m sick and tired of people expecting detailed information to be spoon-fed to them. If you want details they’re there, all you have to do is search.
The idea of bringing the insurance industry in to this debate when they’re the main culprits behind the mess we have now strikes me a little bit like bringing in the mob to help reform the waste management industry.
As far as our health care system being “not that bad”. I suppose that’s true if you’re comparing us to countries like Mexico, China, or India. When you stack us up against other DEVELOPED nations though, we don’t come out so well. I’d suggest looking at some of the World Health Organization statistics (http://www.who.int/en/) if you’re interested in getting some actual numbers instead of spouting baseless platitudes about how it’s “not that bad”.
Finally, you brought up the fact that anybody can walk into an emergency room and receive care, another GOP talking point. Speaking as someone who’s been in that position before–and considering my current situation could easily find myself in it again–I’d have to say that if you think that’s a reasonable way to deliver health care, you have a lot to learn.
The fact that we don’t allow people to die in the streets is admirable I suppose, but I think maybe we should ask some of the people who have been personally bankrupted by a visit to the emergency room how great that system is.
This may sound like a radical concept in America, but I don’t think anyone should be bankrupted because they get sick or because they have an accident. That’s not the sort of country I want to live in. We are better than that.
If this measure shouldn’t pass now, then I have to ask when? When will we stop allowing health care to be distributed by the same system we allow to distribute big screen tv’s? When will the size of a person’s wallet cease to be the determining factor for that person’s health treatment?
I’m sick of hearing about taxes. I’m sick of hearing about “socialism”. I’m sick of hearing about “illegals”. I’m sick of hearing excuses. Equal access to quality health care is a basic human right in every other developed nation, and it should be in the United States as well. If we’re the greatest nation in the world, it’s time we started acting like it.
Just found your blog and am really enjoying the elevated observations and comments.
All those who complain about our government should go live abroad for just a little while: Our “incompetent” government generally works pretty well when one compares it to others on such indices as electric grid; communication grid; availability of information; roads and transportation infrastructure (but for local transportation); life, health, safety, work regulations; food safety; pollution control; transparency of government; transparency in banking and commerce; independence of our court system; tort law; jury trials. As one who has traveled in the Third World, lived in both the Second World (the Soviet Bloc) and the First World (Washington DC and London UK) I can vouch that we actually get value for our taxes.
Now, if government spending bothers you, you can live in other countries where the taxes are lower — and the services scarcer or less competently rendered. After the Civil War, many Southerners fled to Brazil. Might you find your paradise there?
We were able to carry that large out of pocket expense, which did include our insurance premiums because we had no outstanding debt besides our small mortgage and we had money in savings. Believe me I would have loved to have used that money otherwise and that we are NOT a normal case. I am quite thankful that we had the money set aside for emergencies, as last year sure was an expensive one. Yes the amount was insane and it could have easily put us in a bind if we hadn’t been working so hard to save.
I hope that something does get worked out so medical costs are at least lowered for everyone without raising our taxes through the proverbial roof. COBRA just sucks as it is short term and usually at least twice what people are used to paying. Most folks can’t afford double insurance premiums when they are out of work. Just getting that improved would help a whole lot of people.
You raise a good point because the income tax rate in England, which has the single-payer healthcare system, is 40%.
Keep in mind that their publicly funded social services aren’t just limited to health care. That high tax rate also subsidizes things like the BBC and the council housing system. Health care is only part of it.
Here is a link to the health care bill. I believe it has all the provisions. There are things that I do like about the bill, but there are things I don’t like, and still unanswered questions like how we will be paying for this. For instance, if I keep my employer offered insurance, will any credit I receive offset the increase in taxes that will likely occur? I will be diving into this massive thing trying to get a clearer picture.
That is another problem. If Mr. Inglis hasn’t read this thing yet, and I doubt he is alone, and I know the american people haven’t, wouldn’t it be a good idea to make copies of this widely available instead of the pretty sites spouting how great this bill is without actually giving us the bill to read as the healthreform.gov does.
I instead went here. I am still trying to find in this thing how it is going to be paid for. There is some stuff that seems like it is double covering for “just in case” scenarios. Read for yourself. If you find how this is going to be paid for. let me know!
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text
It’s long, its legalese as all congressional bills are, BUT we can all read and better understand what this is really all about.
President Obama has already said that raising taxes on the middle class to pay for this is a deal-breaker for him. Your precious taxes aren’t going up! Of course since all your information on this seems to come from GOP sources, it’s not surprising that you didn’t know that. I have to ask though, even if they were going up, why is that unreasonable considering the benefit to society?
I wonder do you care as much about your tax dollars going to the bloated defense budget as you do this health care bill? This year the United States will spend 47% of the entire world’s military budget. Talk about wasteful spending! 2/3 of the cost of the health care bill comes from reallocation of funds already in the system. Most of the haggling in congress right now is over how the other 1/3 of the bill will be paid for. So far, several things have been tossed around such as such as capping itemized deductions the wealthiest Americans use on their income tax returns.
Total cost of the health care bill is around $950 billion over 10 years. Total Department of Defense budget for fiscal year 2010 alone is $663.8 billion. Two years worth of DoD budgets would more than pay for the whole damn thing, let alone the 1/3 that we’re trying to find money for now.
I only bring it up because I wonder if you and all the others out there so concerned about “your tax dollars” count the pennies falling from your hands every time we drop a bomb on somebody. Why does “paying for” a universal health care solution–albeit an imperfect one–get the fiscal microscope, but the budget for killing people in new and interesting ways with bigger and better toys every year does not?
The DoD budget goes up EVERY year. This year’s was 4% bigger than last year’s, last year’s was 7.5% larger than the year before, etc, etc, etc… To the outside observer, arguments about the fiscal irresponsibility of making sure all American’s have equal access to health care ring pretty hollow when those same arguments aren’t made against the budget for killing people in foreign countries.
As for me, I suppose I’m just looking for a little consistency.
Mr. George: I find your writing concise, clear and correct. You offer well-reasoned consideration of every serious point raised. Good job and Bravo! Keep it up and thank you!
I am not against health care reform, far from it. I am simply wondering how it is going to be funded. The same is true for the cases of the stimulus packages. The first stimulus package just stimulated the press, not the economy, the second hasn’t done much to spur economic growth at all either. But time will tell on that one.
True some of the banks have paid back their bail-outs but the auto industry sure hasn’t. We just forked over a billion dollars to buy cars destined for the junk heap and more is pending. Dealers got to reduce their inventory and buyers got a bargain. The taxpayer now possesses a bunch of cars deemed worthless. Where did that money come from and what is going to happen to the 22,000 and counting cars we just purchased in order to get greener cars on the road? Yes it will hopefully reduce fuel emissions, but not by that much, when one considers how many cars and truck are on the road, just in this country. If nothing else, hopefully it will spur more people to look at greener alternatives more seriously.
So how do we pay for all this new stuff we have, and the ones shortly down the road?
Do we cut military spending? Do we, oh I can only dream, cut congressional perks and paychecks, forcing them to pay their own way for things like we do? Do raise taxes on goods and services, like fuel, junk food and everything we buy at Walmart so we don’t have to raise income tax? Do we start charging a tariff for imports? Do we play governmental Robin Hood and tax the rich or anyone or anything making over $250,000, so that those who are under a certain tax bracket and ain’t paying income taxes anyway, can still not have to pay those taxes?
I do want health care reform. I’d like to see my friends who can’t afford it and my daughter and her husband who currently can’t afford it to be able to not have to worry about having enough money to go to the doctor. I do firmly believe that Medicare and Medicaid need serious reforms to help reduce costs and improve efficiency and ti free up a doctor’s time to spend more time with patient; that we need to reign in the rampant litigation that has caused malpractice insurance rates to skyrocket. I do believe we can come up with sliding scale form of health insurance based on income, with a cap so no one is having to pay ridiculous premiums. We need change, I’m all for that, and we can come up with solutions where everyone wins on this if people would just decide to try.
There are solutions, and this proposal has some really good ones within it. But it will be expensive, to implement. All I want to know is what is it going to take to fund and where is the money going to be coming from. We all pay for this, in some form or another, despite income levels. It may not show up on your 1040, but it shows up in other ways, like higher education costs.
Now I will go write the check for a college tuition that is far higher then it should be for a commuting student. We are middle class, therefore too rich for much in the way of financial aid, unless you count going into debt, which we ain’t gonna do.