LOG IN   JOIN   BLOG SEARCH   ALL DIARIES

Website Blog
Blog
Issues
Take Action
Videos
Donate
About
Youth Resources
My Sistahs
Advocates For Youth
In The Culture - Read More
Blog - Amplify your voice

Thursday, March 25, 2010 at 2:45:00 PM EDT

At long last, the health care reform debate seems to be winding down. Obama, Pelosi, and the Democrats are declaring victory after months of squabbling and the first steps have been taken to implement what Vice President Biden called, “a big [bleep]ing deal.”

The anger felt over health care reform surprised me. I continue to believe that few in the United States legitimately thinks that some people deserve health care and others don’t. And while the issue seems to stem from the so-called “government takeover” of health care, few are complaining about a government-funded public transit system, police force, or postal service.

So why is everyone so angry over health care?

The public debate over health care has been a calculated exercise in misinformation and misdirected anger. As a public health professional, I am the first to admit that the majority of health care is excruciatingly boring. Most of the 2000-page bill just signed by President Obama focuses on physician payments, definitions of health facilities, and funding for epidemiological studies. The “death panels” that Sarah Palin invented last year never existed. Neither did the public funds for abortion. And the LGBTQ provisions? Well, all but one has been thrown out with this new compromise.

And yet, despite the fact that the non-FOX News media has repeatedly refuted these rumors, a segment of the population has remained up in arms over the new deal. So again, what are they so angry about?

The focus on abortion is illustrative that this fight really is not about health care at all. If the tea partiers and conservatives were really concerned with health care, then they would do what so many of the health alliances and trade associations have been doing: read the bill(s). Despite Rep. Stupak’s insistence, abortion was very much a non-issue by the time the Senate began debating health care. But it remained a rallying cry for Republican members of Congress (who apparently also didn’t read the bills), and ultimately resulted in a pointless and sexist executive order from the President reaffirming already existing legislation.

The death threats and acts of vandalism reported by Democratic representatives following the vote earlier this week show that even in spite of the news media’s ongoing dissection of the bill, people still aren’t listening and health care isn’t the problem. The anti-health care terrorists (to borrow a bit of conservative rhetoric) wouldn’t be nearly as upset if Obama decreed that all public schools would be required to teach creationism and not evolution. And I will go out on a limb and say that many would be comfortable if the federal government made homosexuality illegal and reinstated segregation.

While the tea partiers and opponents of health care can hide behind the guise of libertarianism and small government as much as they want, when it comes right down to it it’s only certain types of big government (and certain segments of the population) they oppose.

Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This
Comments
I hate that I know people who have fallen for these baseless lies. It's so pitiful that Republican Senators and Representatives resorted to lies to try to scare people into being against this bill. (or, I should say now, this law!)
# Posted By Mahayana | 3/25/10 10:32 PM | Report | Reply
I'm probably going to be ideologically screwed for writing anything on this topic, but I don't care, because a friend brought up these points while talking about health care:

"Managed health care by an obese surgeon general, passed by a Congress that has not read it, signed by a President that smokes, administered by a treasury cheif who didn't pay taxes and financed by a country that is broke ... What could do wrong?"

We as a country were set up to be a small government. It's probably easy to talk crap about conservatives when (I can only assume) hardly anyone on this Web site is friends with people with those views.
# Posted By seriously1988 | 3/26/10 10:51 AM | Report | Reply
 Actually my best friend (and boyfriend) is conservative, strongly opposes this bill, and believes in small government. Do we have to avoid political discussions most of the time? Of course. Do I love him any less for it? Not even a little. I don't think it's a fair assumption to make that "hardly anyone on this Web site is friends with people with those views." 
It's easy to talk crap about conservatives because they spread erroneous and damaging rumors about "death panels" and the only major news organization that has a conservative bias once called Michelle Obama her husband's "baby mama." If the rhetoric was less disgusting, maybe you wouldn't see so many people talking crap.
# Posted By allyouneedislove | 3/29/10 03:34 PM | Report | Reply
I appreciate you input on this topic. I wish I had friends like you; I am conservative-libertarian and have spoken out against health care and on behalf of the troops, and I have been told by "friends" I have no heart or basic humanity. (Nevermind the fact that I consider the time of my life when I was a liberal to be the most miserable, and I came to my more conservative ideals once I really sat down and started to think about why I felt the way I did; I have been much happier since.)

I sincerely do believe this health care bill tramples on individuals' rights because it is the government taking something from one to give it to another.

Also, if there was never a provision for the public funding of abortion, then why did Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women decry the bill the very day it was passed as Obama throwing women under the bus so he could get his "legacy" bill passed?

# Posted By seriously1988 | 3/30/10 01:02 AM | Report | Reply
Also, if there was never a provision for the public funding of abortion, then why did Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women decry the bill the very day it was passed as Obama throwing women under the bus so he could get his "legacy" bill passed?

Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women were against that provision of the bill because the way it will restructure all health insurance will make it unlikely that private health insurance will cover abortion either. (The majority of private health insurers do cover abortion currently.) Women will have to specifically get separate policies to cover abortion. Since most women do not plan to have unwanted pregnancies, it is unlikely that they will get the extra coverage, and it therefore will not be there when they need it.

This will have a disspraportionately neggative effect on poor and middle income women. Think about it: if a woman can't afford an abortion, how can she afford to raise a child?




# Posted By bigmama2xx | 3/30/10 07:52 PM | Report | Reply
One could make the argument if the woman cannot afford an abortion OR a child, what is she doing having unprotected sex? (Obviously does not apply in cases in rape or incent)
# Posted By seriously1988 | 3/30/10 10:03 PM | Report | Reply