RSS Feed MenuJim Wallis, the founder and outspoken representative of the religious left magazine, Sojourners, has proposed a new tactic to advance President Obama’s agenda: intimidation in the guise of compassion.
This week, Sojourners is asking its readers and supporters to bombard Rush Limbaugh and other radio talkers with formatted e-mails telling the story of Joshua, a man with severe psychological duress, whose inability to obtain mental healthcare led to his untimely death.
The ploy is meant to send healthcare opponents into fearful recoil. Wallis hopes to force critics of the president’s plan into a psychic dilemma: either submit or else publicly acknowledge that media stereotypes about conservative’s lack of compassion are indeed true.
The ploy disregards the truth that conservatives too desire that all individuals have access to healthcare. This debate has never been about access, but always about the means of providing access.
Yet the ploy also contains a powerful truth of its own. If conservatives wish to succeed in combating Obamacare, conservatives will have to demonstrate concern for the care of all Americans. That should not be too difficult – because we do!
Acting on this concern requires more than just good policy however. It requires a conspicuous – even theatrical – self-presentation of conservatives as concerned and caring. It will require us to restore meaning to a phrase long dismissed and derided: compassionate conservatism.
midcon // Sep 16, 2009 at 9:52 am
The problem with stories such as Joshua’s is that much of it is unsupported supposition. For example is it clear that he had no access to the state program even when he was working? The Sojourners sample letter to Limbaugh states “We feel sure that, had there been consistent medical and pharmaceutical care available to him, he would have had a happy and productive life…” If sent this letter, what would I be basing may “We feel sure” on? Is there empirical evidence? Expert (such as the mental health professionals we saw) statements that would lead one to the “we feel sure” conclusion. I might feel better about sending such a letter if it contained some direct cause and effect information. Joshua’s story might trigger an emotional response but it does little to further the cause of understanding the problem and identifying appropriate solutions. Health care availability/reform/debate/whatever is too complex of a topic to resort to sound bites, slogans, and signs as means to the debate.
The public should be witnessing the debate and the hearings on CPAN – such as the House Oversight & Gov’t. Reform Subcommittee hearing from patients and health care providers about the influence private insurance companies have over medical procedures today at 10AM EST. Those are the mechanisms that should be employed gain understanding and form opinions. Unfortunately, the public too often resorts to letting others do their thinking, examining, and questioning for them. Yes the subject is difficult but that’s no excuse for resorting to a form of Cliff’s Notes instead of reading the book.
sinz54 // Sep 16, 2009 at 10:01 am
Walker: The ploy disregards the truth that conservatives too desire that all individuals have access to healthcare.
Not true.
I know a lot of conservatives who don’t want that–because it’s not in the Constitution.
To them, the only rights we have are those in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Since health care is not discussed in those documents, Americans should be on their own as far as health care is concerned; it’s just not a responsibility of government to do anything about it one way or the other, they claim. If you don’t have access to healthcare, go to an Emergency Room. (They forget that all persons are given access to Emergency Room care by state law; if those laws didn’t exist either, Emergency Rooms could turn away people who couldn’t pay.)
I’ve seen this argument many times on RedState.com, TownHall.com, and elsewhere.
ConArtist // Sep 16, 2009 at 11:01 am
Sinz is absolutely right. Ask many a conservative and they have no desire to support anyone else’s health care save for themselves and their immediate family. I presume they don’t believe they’re being compassionless either. To Democrats, compassion is more holistic (even to those who flatly exploit the system). The GOP seems comfortable applying every man for himself principle.
I find it rather laughable that the liberal “intimidation” is to share a story about a man who lost his life. Where Republican intimidation is to show up to rallies with swastikas and assault rifles. They’re hardly comparable.
balconesfault // Sep 16, 2009 at 11:16 am
Look … this tactic by Sojourners is no more a “ploy is meant to send healthcare opponents into fearful recoil” then complaints about growth of government at Town Halls was meant to send healthcare supporters into fearful recoil.
It is, simply, putting a case out there that illustrates one of the significant societal problems raised by not having any universal healthcare guarantee other than emergency rooms.
Compassion, bleh. This isn’t about compassion. Or at least, for me it isn’t. A mentally ill person on the streets isn’t just a threat to himself – he’s a threat to me. And not only because he might do violence to me – if he just jumps in front of my car, and I hit my brakes, I could get rear-ended and suffer severe injury. If he jumps in front of someone elses car, they might veer unpredictably and run me over on my afternoon run.
Our society is INCREDIBLY interrelated. Untreated mental illness poses a risk to everyone. And unless you’re ready to take a two-step into totalitarianism, we can’t just start rounding up the unstable and forcing them into treatment or prison … you kind of need, oh, just cause? Or is that passe’ after the last 7 years?
Even if we have universal coverage, and create better pathways for the mentally ill to get coverage, we’re not going to get everyone. But there’s a very legit argument that this is as much a matter of national security as spending tens of billions hunting down people who want to blow themselves up in Sunni or Shiite marketplaces.
rbottoms // Sep 16, 2009 at 11:18 am
The GOP seems comfortable applying every man for himself principle.
I find it rather laughable that the liberal “intimidation” is to share a story about a man who lost his life. Where Republican intimidation is to show up to rallies with swastikas and assault rifles.
Then there’s that helpful graphic with scissors implying violence.
You people are certifiable.
JeninCT // Sep 16, 2009 at 11:47 am
With rights come responsibility, but even if we round up mentally ill people (and therefore infringing on their rights) some will fall through the cracks. And the term compassionate conservatism drew mostly snarky distain from the liberal left. What would be different now?
The only thing that could change the debate would be a leader that actually listens to ideas for healthcare reform from the other side of the aisle instead of constantly referring to “Republicans who want the status quo.” If I hear that one more time I’ll scream.
garylaney // Sep 16, 2009 at 11:48 am
Sinz is dead on. His comment reminds me of the night of Obama’s health care speech, the Joe Wilson outburst speech. During the speech, a conservative Facebook buddy posted “Healthcare is not a Right.” as his status. … OK then…
I think the right has done a poor job of identifying the current health care system as being the root problem that led to the solution that they don’t like. Many on the right seem to deny the premise that health care needs reforming. They have allowed the conflict to become “Current system vs. Democratic fix” and have chosen to side with the current system. There are Republican reform proposals out there, but there has been so little emphasis on these proposals FROM THE REPUBLICANS THEMSELVES that even many rank-and-file conservatives don’t know what they are and don’t care…they are simply picking a fight with a Democratic president they don’t like.
If conservatives want to ultimately come out of this chapter saving face, which is where this has all gone, in my opinion they must shift their argument to one that STARTS with the premise that our current system is flawed an unsustainable. And THEN argue about the solutions.
balconesfault // Sep 16, 2009 at 12:13 pm
there has been so little emphasis on these proposals FROM THE REPUBLICANS THEMSELVES that even many rank-and-file conservatives don’t know what they are and don’t care
The GOP really doesn’t have anything on the table that would reduce healthcare costs. Someone sent us to the GOP healthcare goals the other day, and the list includes nothing that has a chance of seriously reducing the expansion of costs. Tort reform and portability across state lines isn’t going to do it, and those create their own problems that could reduce coverage as much as any government bureaucrats could.
Hell, even a significant number of Democratic politicians are out to lunch on this one.
A solid majority of Americans favor a plan that ends up including a private option. A solid majority of physicians in America favor a plan that ends up including a private option. We have ex-insurance executives telling us that any plan that does not include a private option will not slow the increase in healthcare costs – and some things on the table might just accelerate the costs.
Republicans may not want the status quo. But they don’t seem to want any change that has a real chance of slowing the trajectory of societal insurance spending increases.
anniemargret // Sep 16, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Typical, expected response from Republicans…they’re affronted – to stir up any compassion for their fellow Americans is a ‘tactic’ – something to be feared and avoided at all costs. ….my, my, the audacity of Reverend Wallis! A pastor for God’s sake, calling on a noble response. Wow, that’s intimidation! Guaranteed: the protesters will be out tomorrow with new signs probably calling him ‘Beelzebub!”
Notice the words used in the article : Ploy, tactic, intimidation …. yep, Wallis is scary alright.
I would prefer to call this GOP response ….cognitive dissonance. The GOP has had it for years.
“Compassionate Conservatism’ – an oxymoron. I think the last Republican who probably *really* meant it was GWB41.
Almost every Republican heard and read nowadays say the same thing….’They’ (those nebulous poor pathetic unfortunate poor and middle class workers) can get healthcare….all they have to do is buy it! Or go to the ER. Sure…that’s it!
Unbelievable. They don’t have a clue. Get out of the offices and off the blogs and go out and meet real people with real problems. Go to sickforprofit.com and find out how human beings are being left to suffer, perhaps even to die, because the insurance companies CEOs can make more money by dropping their numbers of insured, or deliberately misinterpreting illnesses for profit .
Go to andrewsullivan.com and read his series, “The View From Your Sickbed” But then again, that would mean their consciences might be pricked…..and we can’t have that. Better not to see them too close. Statistics are always SO much easier.
I don’t believe for one minute that Republicans have a serious or credulous voice on this issue. They don’t because I hear them say over and over again that they don’t. They had 8 years to address the issue, but didn’t.
Their answer: ‘tort reform’ which would be a prick of a needle in a haystack:
http://washingtonindependent.com/55535/tort-reform-unlikely-to-cut-health-care-costs
We’ve seen the signs and protesters at the town hall meetings and the 9/12 march. We know where they heart (and minds) are…and it is not on healthcare reform. By golly, we hear – loud and clear.
Churl // Sep 16, 2009 at 1:26 pm
balconesfault spoke thusly, “Tort reform and portability across state lines isn’t going to do it, and those create their own problems that could reduce coverage as much as any government bureaucrats could.”
Please list and describe the problems caused by tort reform and the interstate portability of insurance coverage.
EscapeVelocity // Sep 16, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Im really unconcerned about this letter writing campaign.
What I would like to discuss, is how Obama used the internet to collect undocumented monies (under $200 a pop) from around the world. How he corrupted our system with foreign donations from an assortment of Anti American Euroweenies, Muslims, and Jew Haters, etc.
That this site hasnt had one story on ACORN but comes up with this drivel (see OP), shows just how marginalized this site is. Are you such a shrinking violet that you cant have a Bible story sent to you in a letter in a political plea. Good Lord!
anniemargret // Sep 16, 2009 at 2:10 pm
He’s nailed it:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/no-republicans-for-healthcare-reform.html#more
balconesfault // Sep 16, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Please list and describe the problems caused by tort reform and the interstate portability of insurance coverage.
Sure. Tort reform is an interjection of big government into the balance of the relationship between insurance companies, physicians, and patients. Yes, there is a risk of frivolous lawsuits … but most tort reform proposals ignore the tremendous burden on patients (or their survivors) to prove negligence or error. Meanwhile, most studies have shown little or no payback in terms of rate relief from changing this balance of power – meaning we’re effectively stripping people of one tool that helps hold insurance companies feet to the fire when approving treatment for little overall savings.
Interstate portability Sinz did a great job of elaborating many of the problems with in another post. In addition, as we’ve seen with the finance industry, interstate portability will lead directly to a serious reduction of individual states ability to regulate the insurance industry in the way desired by their electorate.
Both these proposals fly directly in the face of Federalism. I would think this would be problematic for most conservatives.
Churl // Sep 16, 2009 at 4:51 pm
balconesfault,
(1) “interjection of big government….” tee hee.
(2) Yes, there is a burden of proof in lawsuits, especially those involving very large sums of money as, for example, some of John Edwards’s obstetrical windfalls.
(3) “studies have shown….” Studies of what, where, by whom? Did other studies show other things? (Karl Popper, falsifiability and all that)
(4) The states can regulate all they or their electorates want, but why not allow people to purchase insurance (or any other product) from another state?
(5) “Federalism” tee hee.
sinz54 // Sep 16, 2009 at 6:42 pm
balconesfault: The GOP really doesn’t have anything on the table that would reduce healthcare costs.
And neither do the Dems, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
CBO scoring of all the Dems’ proposals has so far been disappointing.
sinz54 // Sep 16, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Churl: Please list and describe the problems caused by tort reform and the interstate portability of insurance coverage.
Portability of insurance coverage is unworkable, when most insurers are local to one region of the country as they currently are.
Currently, Kaiser Permanente’s network of doctors are all located in the West and Midwest. Harvard-Pilgrim’s network of doctors are all located in New England.
If a Massachusetts resident who is a policyholder with Harvard-Pilgrim decides to move to California (say, to take a job there), he will find that NONE of the doctors in California are in Harvard-Pilgrim’s network of providers. What does he do? Go to a doctor out of network and pay a MUCH higher co-pay?
Portability would destroy all such regional insurers, leaving only the national insurers like Blue Cross to select from.
There’s nothin wrong with tort reform–except that it won’t have a significant impact on health care costs.
In fact, NONE of the proposals, Dem or Repub, will reduce health care costs–because none of them ever asked the simple question: Just what is driving up health care costs?
Survey after survey have shown that the two biggest drivers of health care costs are the use of the latest whiz-bang state-of-the-art technology, regardless of cost, to try (and often fail) to save a patient’s life; and the social pathologies that plague American society: Poverty, violence, drugs, booze, illegal immigration.
balconesfault // Sep 16, 2009 at 7:22 pm
And neither do the Dems, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Do not confuse Federal healthcare costs with societal healthcare costs.
agentprovocateur // Sep 16, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Oh, the humanity! What a horror that a reverend is using the “tactic” of “intimidation” against Rush Limbaugh and his ilk. Of course, I guess it shouldn’t be surprising that someone who actually writes about “compassionate conservatism” with a straight face would use these ludicrous descriptions for what Wallis is doing.
What I would like to discuss, is how Obama used the internet to collect undocumented monies (under $200 a pop) from around the world. How he corrupted our system with foreign donations from an assortment of Anti American Euroweenies, Muslims, and Jew Haters, etc.
Perhaps you could make a citizen’s arrest the next time you see him in person.
Churl // Sep 17, 2009 at 9:43 am
sinz54, this “in network” stuff is one of the many things I don’t like about the present fragmented insurance coverage mess. I don’t see anything wrong with national insurers competing with each other, given that they are allowed freely to do so.
As far as tort reform goes, you might check out the German system, where liabilities of all kinds are capped and the legal system has the “loser pays” principle. Malpractice insurance there is a small fraction of what it is here and the medical care there is good.
Finally exactly what is “whiz-bang state-of-the-art technology” and what is wrong with using it? All technologies were once “whiz-bang state-of-the-art”.
sinz-like folks in days past: “Don’t do any WBSOTA open heart surgery. It costs too much and some of the patients will die anyway.”
“What is this penicillin mold stuff? It would cost lots of money to set up the infrastructure to produce it and some of the people who get it will die anyway”.
rbottoms // Sep 17, 2009 at 9:20 pm
What is this penicillin mold stuff? It would cost lots of money to set up the infrastructure to produce it and some of the people who get it will die anyway”.
“Yes? You say you’re Eli Lilly and you want to take the billions of dollars for basic research already paid for by taxpayers, create a new drug out of it and charge $12 a tablet? And you only want to do that for the most popular ailments?”
“Sure no problem at all. Can we throw in some huge tax breaks to cover the cost of advertising it to consumers for you… Excellent”
“Listen, we have several billion dollars in Defense Department research to create TCP/IP laying around. Spell it? Yes, that’s I N T E R N E T. Could we interest you in that? No.”
“Oh thanks, let me get a pen. N E T S C A PE. I’ll give them a call.”
“Rugged individualism and the government staying out of your way sir? Certainly. We’re on it.”
stuiec // Sep 18, 2009 at 12:11 am
“We researched aid from pharmaceutical companies and found that they require a new prescription each month, but Joshua couldn’t afford to see a psychiatrist monthly. ”
Who is “we”? Are we to understand that the Sojourners allowed this young man to die because they couldn’t be bothered to take up a collection to pay for his health care?
Sounds like a very callous group of people, standing by and letting a poor mentally ill man die because they felt it was government’s job to save him.
EscapeVelocity // Sep 19, 2009 at 6:25 pm
As far as tort reform goes, you might check out the German system, where liabilities of all kinds are capped and the legal system has the “loser pays” principle. Malpractice insurance there is a small fraction of what it is here and the medical care there is good. — churl
Besides the reduction in medical malpractice insurance…..the real benefits are in reducing unnecessary tests and procideures just to cover the medical practitioners or businesses arse.