Some things just aren't worth the fight and are better left out rather than give your opponents free ammunition. Still it rankles that the likes of She Who Shall Not Be Named and her ilk, through innuendo and out right lying, can kill something that is worth while -- something that even conservatives would support if it had not been turned into a shibboleth to discredit the health care bill and Obama.
I'm talking about "end of life counseling," aka "death panels."
First, the House version of health care reform specifically included funding for doctors to spend the time to talk with and encourage their patients to make advance decisions about how they would like to be treated when quality of life can no longer be sustained.
The whole purpose of it is to encourage people to make THEIR OWN PLANS, with a signed directive to carry out THEIR wishes, rather than leave such decisions up to family and doctors who may not know the patient's preference or may have their own differing agendas.
The genius of the Republican perfidy in politics is that they know how to turn something good into something scary and paranoid, simply in order to gain political control over gullible voters.
So, She Who, etc. blathered about death panels and pulling the plug on grandma or on her Downs baby -- conjuring images of forced euthanasia and rationing of health care. The provision was dropped from the final bill.
Then it surfaced again last month in the regulations for implementing health care reform. And again "death panels" began to echo over the landscape.
The White House announced today that this language is being removed from the regulations.
The idea is sound, it is important, and we ought to be able to have it in there. But, as a practical matter, it isn't worth the price of the negative spin from the other side. What hurts most is that She Who, etc. can now crow about having got rid of the death panels. However, not specifically authorizing it won't prevent doctors from doing it as part of regular visits from their patients, as many do now.
Heck, it's done now on a routine basis in many hospitals when a patient checks in for surgery. Leaving it out doesn't prevent it; it just removes the encouragement that would have come from a separate item that could be billed for.
As our infamous governor Lester Maddox once said, to explain what was needed to improve our terrible prison system: "What we need is a better class of prisoners." What we definitely need to improve our political/governmental system is a better class of voters.
Or we need to unleash Joe Biden and allow him to go on TV 24/7 and say: "That's bullshit" until people start to listen and think.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm not even going to say what is obvious.
ReplyDeleteWhat's that cliche - you have to stand for something, or you stand for nothing.
richard
Standing up for getting the best deal you can in difficult times, or standing up and choosing which battles are worth fighting and which ones are distractions from the main goal -- those are NOT standing for nothing.
ReplyDeleteRichard, our differences are mostly about strategy, not about what kind of society and governance we want. Those differences are ones of opinion, not of "obvious" truths. When you state your opinion as "obvious" truth, it comes across as insulting -- as if you think I'm either I am too dumb or too big of a wuss, or haven't done my homework -- else I would be just as outraged and betrayed by Obama as you are. I honestly don't think that's what you mean to imply, but that's what it feels like coming from you.
I know some good ol' Southerners who would say: "Bless his heart, he can't help it. He was raised up there among Yankees."
Ralph,
ReplyDeleteYou are taking it way too personally. It's a political discussion to begin with. And in the second place, that's not what I meant.
I didn't mean obvious 'truths'. I meant my response to this should be obvious. Is there anyone who has read my posts who couldn't predict what I would think of Obama backing down again? My opinion - not truths, my opinion - on it is what should be obvious. What is 'obvious' is what I would feel/say about it. So there was no point saying it.
There is nothing new or different in O's 'strategy' here. It's what he's done the past two years. He met Republican opposition, he compromised. That has been his pattern.
My second comment referred to this line,
as a practical matter, it isn't worth the price of the negative spin from the other side.
What I meant to imply was, if you give up doing what you believe is right because you are afraid of what the other side will say about you, then what do you believe in? What would be worth the price to him(Obama)? I frankly have no idea anymore.
Those of us who are Progressive are trying to figure out what exactly Obama does believe in, what he believes is worth fighting for. Or maybe the issue is he doesn't believe in fighting as a tactic, and that's what we can't see. Maybe compromise is so ingrained in his character, that is how he will approach every solution. Which does make it difficult to nail down his core beliefs. It's not a matter of who is right or wrong, or trying to convince anyone to my side.
I am a Yankee. And my friends and I fought for gay rights, women's rights, civil rights, worker's rights, and against military aggression. We don't keep our mouths shut, as many in the South would have us do. And because of that, change occurs.
richard
Richard, I've been writing and re-writing a response to this -- and it just keeps getting longer and longer and further and further from what needs to be aired here.
ReplyDeleteWe don't have a dialogue or even a discussion about politics -- as we did before Obama took office and had to deal with Congress. You don't give an ounce of credence to that factor in your harsh judgments of his performance, while that is the point I keep stressing in trying to understand and support him.
Nor do you give any credence to what I write. I don't think you have ever reflected on anything I've written or had any second thoughts based on my posts. Nor do you respond to my comments about your comments, except to reassert your opposition and try to convince me I'm wrong.
If I make what seems to me a point that might prompt you to think, you usually just don't respond. As in our Dec 23rd exchange ("This lame duck is a pretty good duck") when I wrote a revision of your metaphor of the diner who wanted steak and only got hamburger -- to point out how you refuse, even in your metaphor, to factor in the limits within which Obama as to work.
Maybe I really have nothing worthwhile to say. If that's what you think, then why do you keep reading? Is it just an opportunity to re-state your opposition to Obama? And now that has become so predictable that even you think it doesn't need to be said.
As to my "taking it too personally:" I was explaining and defending Obama's taking out a minor part of the health care reform to keep from giving the other side the ammunition to turn public opinion against the whole bill ("death panels").
In fact, it is rather minor, because doctors can still give end of life advance planning; they just won't get to bill extra for it. But you call that "giving up what you believe is right because you're afraid what the other side will say about you."
Now that is a gross misreading of the situation, and it is typical of your single-minded opposition that refuses to take context or larger picture into account. Yet that's what led to your zinger: "You have to stand for something or you stand for nothing."
So, when I'm defending Obama's compromise that you find so contemptible, how can that not also apply to me, "personally"?
If we had some real dialogue, or if I thought you might ever reflect on anything I write, that would be different. As it is, I see no point in continuing this non-discussion.
That's pretty sad, since we really agree on so much. It's not just cultural and communication style differences between northerners and southerners; I have lots of friends who grew up in New England; and with most of them I can have really good, give and take discussions, even about politics.
"maybe the issue is he doesn't believe in fighting as a tactic, and that's what we can't see."
ReplyDeletewe can't see
That sounds like a line to me that shows I do give credence to what you write. It's a recognition that Progressives(including myself), may be missing something in our assessment, that part of our disillusion may lie in an inability to accurately assess O's tactical approach. That's not a position I held 2 months ago.
I run my Facebook page as a blog. I have a number of conservatives who actively engage in the political discussions. I have Democrats ranging from Progressive to Centrist. We have a diverse assortment of voices, with diverse opinions. I often have 30-40 posts, and have even topped 100 on occasion.
We have raging disagreements. Yet, everyone comes back.
Because on one level we all recognize that we are really talking about people we know nothing about. Obama, Boehner -they are names and faces in the news. The entirety of our knowledge of them is based on news reports, articles, public behaviors, political choices they make. We know nothing about the real people. So we don't really take disagreements over politicians as personal attacks.
I don't take it as a personal attack on me when you accept policies I don't embrace. You shouldn't take it as a personal attack on you when I speak up for policies I'm not comfortable compromising. I understand what you're saying, but what works for you doesn't have to work for me. And yes, earlier I was very upset with Obama. But I'm past that, going through my, what is it, 7 stages of grief? Still grumbling on occassion, but not really spewing. This last post was my first in about 2 weeks, and the one before that I only posted because you referenced me in your post. I've been trying to keep a lower profile.
One thing we can agree on is that last election people in the center-left and people who were Progressive both worked for Obama. There is a huge split now. I am not a sole voice in the wilderness. I think we need to find a way to bridge that gap if we want to get him re-elected.
It seems if you are willing to accept Obama working with Republicans who get a lot of what they want and still condemn him, you should be accepting of Progressives who want some bones thrown their way, too.
richard
"It seems if you are willing to accept Obama working with Republicans who get a lot of what they want and still condemn him, you should be accepting of Progressives who want some bones thrown their way, too."
ReplyDeleteOf course I accept Progressives who want some bones thrown their way, too. I have often stated on here that I want the same thing you want, I too am disappointed in what Obama has been able to deliver, I too wish he was able to deliver on all the promises.
I have never criticized you for being disappointed in Obama, only for not considering the limits within which he has to work and for not giving him some credit for what he has accomplished.
I guess our difference is that for you our discussions are the same as with the people on your blog that you don't know. I do take it as more personal, because I do see our exchange as not just about ideas but also about a friendship.
And what I don't get from you is any sense that you hear me. If you did, instead of just reacting reflexively, you wouldn't have written that last paragraph. You would have registered that I had written those second and third paragraphs over and over in the course of the past year. It apparently didn't get through.
So -- this clarifies a lot.
I hear you. You think he's done well given the limits. The compromises he makes are necessary to move things forward, albeit in a less than perfect way. I get that.
ReplyDeleteI think the limits are less restrictive than you do, and there are ways to break through or go around those limits.
We have different assessments on the lay of the land. I don't believe the limits he has to work within are as restrictive as you believe them to be. That's the impasse, isn't it?
Our blog was called Two Guys Spouting Off, wasn't it? That's what I think of when I think of political discussions - spouting off.
richard
Our differences become clearer and clearer.
ReplyDeleteMy blog is my sounding off about something in the news that day. If a friend comments, then I welcome a dialogue, where we listen to each other from a background of mutual respect.
You want to spout off, which doesn't require listening at all beyond picking up on some point, perhaps taking it out of context, and spouting off -- without any consideration of the other as a person.
No right way or wrong way; just different.
Sounds like you have satisfying opportunities for what you want on your own Facebook blog.
And I have other friends that do more the kind of exchange that I want.
So be it.