Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Palin's America vs the real America

So conservative populist hero Sarah Palin, who cut and ran as Alaska governor, made news again recently by claiming that in the America she knows and loves, bureaucrats do not decide who does or doesn't get health care. In her America, health care doesn't get rationed. In her America, there are no 'death panels.'

Yet in the Real America, far removed from Palin's Utopia, Americans ALREADY have insurance bureaucrats deciding whether they get the health care their doctors and medical professionals deem necessary.

In the Real America, health care already gets rationed.

In the Real America, there are already death panels.

So rather than support the option (single payer) that guarantees every American health care, she supports the present system where care is rationed by insurance bean counters in order that insurance CEOs can receive compensation that would make A-Roid and Kobe feel like paupers.

I'm very happy for Palin that the generous taxpayer-funded health are she's received for the last decade allows her and her Down's Syndrome baby to get good care.

I just wish that the privileged Mrs. Palin would fight for, rather than against, the plan that would give everyone else access to the same level of care she and her baby got.

Way to stick up for the little guy!


PlanetAlbany said...

Obama supporter but health care plan critic Camille Paglia has a different take:
"As a libertarian and refugee from the authoritarian Roman Catholic church of my youth," Paglia says, "I simply do not understand the drift of my party toward a soulless collectivism. This is in fact what Sarah Palin hit on in her shocking image of a 'death panel' under Obamacare that would make irrevocable decisions about the disabled and elderly. When I first saw that phrase, headlined on the Drudge Report, I burst out laughing. It seemed so over the top! But on reflection, I realized that Palin's shrewdly timed metaphor spoke directly to the electorate's unease with the prospect of shadowy, unelected government figures controlling our lives. A death panel not only has the power of life and death but is itself a symptom of a Kafkaesque brave new world where authority has become remote, arbitrary and spectral. And as in the Spanish Inquisition, dissidence is heresy, persecuted and punished."

PlanetAlbany said...

So does another Obama voter, Mickey Kaus, whose main criticism of the president's health-care plan is that it focuses too much on cost control.
Writing about Obama's New Hampshire meeting on health care, Kaus says: "I don't think the now-famous end-of-life consultations are what Palin was referring to by 'death panels,' contrary to what Obama claims at the beginning of the meeting. If she was referring to any actual, existing proposal it would be to the IMAC panel, or what she fears the IMAC panel might turn into--as Obama himself admits at the end of the meeting."

Brian said...

As to the second comment, I can only infer what Palin's point was (and apparently Mickey Klaus can't do any better) because she wasn't very coherent in making it.

The point pf my piece (which I can state categorically) is that what Paglia refers to is already a reality under our present health care system that is driven solely by not just profits, but ever exploding profits.

There's plenty of evidence that care is less factory-like in countries like Canada where doctors are paid a flat salary and thus do not have an incentive to get people in and out of the assembly line as quickly as possibly nor an incentive to run tons of unnecessary tests.

The current system provides precisely the sort of dehumanizing experience Paglia warns against.

And there's very little choice. I can either take my company's insurance or have none at all. I don't like the assembly line experience I got at my doctor but I haven't been able to find another that's much different. They're all subject to the pressures of this messed up system that so much venom is being spent toward preserving.

Except for the single payer advocates mostly ignored by the mainstream media, opposition to ObamaCare is primarily NO NO NO (or often, COMMUNIST SOCIALIST NAZI) but not offering anything to say YES to.

PlanetAlbany said...

My position is more MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE, but only if it addresses a certain issue the way I favor:

semi234 said...

This is one of my criticisms that the Progressives have failed to pick up on.

Instead of phrasing the "single-payer" option as such. Its confuses people (partially because its already complicated & people don't take the time to learn what's what). Not to mention, it sounds like the bogeyman since taxes (in any fashion) sounds so monolithic & scary.

They should instead rephrase it as "expanding Medicare/Medicaid for all" or something like that. Its taking an already familiar concept that people have come to accept & just expanding it.

Brian said...

Matt, that's an excellent point and one I'll try to incorporate.

A few do but most, including myself, don't.

In fact, the single payer bill in the House is indeed called Medicare For All.

PlanetAlbany said...

Palin has responded to the controversy here:

Brian said...

So Bob, would you support Medicare for All (single payer) if it didn't pay for abortions?

PlanetAlbany said...

I frankly don't know enough about the issue, but would certainly consider it as one of the options.