RSS Feed MenuI’m a healthy (haven’t missed a day of work in 4 years), well-off (if things go well, I could make $200,000 this year), thirty-something Republican policy wonk. I donated to John McCain’s Presidential campaign. Good friends of mine held prominent positions in the Bush White House. I worked at a senior level for a big-name Republican politician. The last few months, I’ve helped several clients (Republican pols and trade associations you’ve heard of) try and throw cold water on President Obama’s health care plan. Indeed, large parts of the plan — subsidies for the middle class, greatly increased regulation of the private economy, and the genuine threat of health care rationing — offend my political beliefs. But, personally, I’d like to see Obamacare become law.
I’ll cut to the chase: I couldn’t ever handle my wife’s current health problems without insurance and the current precarious state of my own health coverage causes me tremendous anxiety and leads me to personally support the Democratic agenda for health care reform. As a result of chronic severe life-long asthma, a heart condition, and a lifetime of terrible medical luck — a broken arm that developed a bone infection in her 20s — she’s a physical wreck, entirely unable to work. I’m quite sure that no individual insurer would (or should) ever write an individual policy that includes her unless obligated to by law.
Even with a pretty good income of my own and the resources of our families we’d have enormous difficulty paying anything close to the medical bills my wife has run up without very comprehensive insurance. One stay she had at a major hospital cost over $130,000 and afterwards my then-employer’s HR director all but accused her of raising health insurance premiums for everyone in the office. (She was right.) A recent visit to the emergency room that included an MRI cost over $10,000. And I haven’t even seen the tab for her most recent 3-day hospital stay.
For now, largely thanks to President Obama’s policies, none of this is a major problem even though my co-pays and deductibles can exceed $500 a month (and our health insurance is, by all accounts, a very solid PPO plan). The federal government picks up about half of the health premium from the job my wife held before she got too sick to work — I made too much to qualify for the full 65 percent subsidy now available — but even this won’t last forever. We have about 7 months left on the subsidy and another few after COBRA runs out altogether.
After that, the options aren’t that good. I’ve made an agreement with one of my larger clients to add me to its payroll and health insurance plan if I ask them. The problem is, I’ll feel like crap if the company does this for me: it’s a small business with about 15 employees and my wife’ s health problems will probably raise premiums for everyone enough to have a material effect on the company’s bottom line and cut take home pay for all employees. Likewise, my wife, who can’t work, has put in an application for Social Security disability and, if it’s approved, will eventually qualify for Medicare. But, despite having worked to help craft Medicare policy on the national level, I didn’t know that she’ll have to wait two years to enroll. (Frankly, she probably could have qualified a year ago but, largely out of a mutual “we don’t need welfare” attitude, we didn’t apply then.) And, after COBRA runs out, even one hospital stay would cause serious problems unless I rely on my client’s willingness to put me on its plan. The state I live in offers a “last resort” health care plan and, I could also create a “small group” consisting of myself and my secretary, who already has insurance through her husband, but either of these options would give us a very high monthly premium and even higher co-insurance every time my wife goes to the hospital.
We’d be better off (and I think society would too) under something like Obamacare. In a “public option” or community-rated individual market plan offered through an exchange I’d have no problem paying a premium and the costs of any subsidy we paid would be distributed across the entire exchange rather than focused narrowly. This seems a lot fairer than putting us on a heavily subsidized community-rated national health care plan largely intended for the elderly or, worse yet, forcing every employee of a small business to pick up a portion of our health care costs.
And I can’t see any other way to get through. No developed country, not even ours, requires the very sick to pay their own hospital bills in full. Through group plans, community rating, and public coverage, someone else will always pay a portion of the bills for the truly sick. After all, my wife exercises when she’s healthy enough to, keeps her weight within recommended guidelines, gets all preventative care doctors say she should, takes her medications, eats right, has never smoked, and drinks only once in a while. Her conditions result entirely from genetics and bad luck. It is one thing to say she should be responsible (she is) and another to say that my family deserves enormous financial hardship because of things entirely beyond our control.
In fact, the total level of subsidy would probably go down under Obamacare. Right now, we get a COBRA subsidy I don’t deserve. Without some serious reform, it’s likely that my wife will ultimately end up on Medicare with taxpayers picking up a large portion of her bills in any case. What makes sense is a policy that would give us sturdy health insurance covering all of her preexisting conditions with predictable, if high, premiums and enough benefits that we won’t owe thousands of dollars out-of-pocket after a single hospital stay. It seems pretty simple but, absent sweeping health care reform, no such option exists or will exist.
Such an option includes the (modified) community rating and guaranteed issue provisions of Obamacare. Making these things work, in turn, requires something similar to an individual mandate to purchase health insurance. Without that, people will buy insurance only when they get sick. (New Jersey has tried that.) A mandate, in turn, would require some subsidies for lower income individuals to purchase health insurance. And, with that, one basically has Obamacare. In this context I’m not even sure that a pure “public option” is a bad idea largely because, managed properly, it would skim off people like my wife and might actually moderate premiums in a privately managed individual market.
My interest, I must admit, is selfish. I’m never going to end up on the streets as a result of my wife’s medical bills and my wife is never going to go without needed medical care. I’m grateful that she can see all kinds of specialists without waiting for them and get high-tech diagnostics anytime a doctor thinks it might help. I wouldn’t wish any other nation’s medical system on her and understand that some of these things could well get worse under an Obamacare-like agenda. But, for now, it seems like the best option.
grackle // Mar 19, 2010 at 2:47 pm
The commentor, earlier: The employer would not be paying employees to switch to the Universal Access Plan. He would be paying employees to opt out of the company plan.
My response: Readers, this seems to me to be a rather exquisite distinction. Let’s just say the employer is paying the employee to opt out of the company plan and if the employee had a pre-existing condition that employee would inevitably end up on the Universal Access Program if the employee could find no other coverage.
The commentor replies: Trust me – billions of dollars worth of business decisions are made all the time on such “exquisite distinctions”. That’s the reason why corporate lawyers make such excellent salaries.
Me, earlier: Naw,[in order to stop employers from gaming the system] you could simply make it illegal for employers to pay employees to drop their coverage.
You’re not paying an employee to drop coverage. Employees have to re-enroll in coverage on an annual basis. While most employers make it convenient by rolling over the previous years coverage, “opting out” is not dropping coverage.
Pardon me, readers, but this is just another exquisite distinction. By “opting out” of coverage an employee is not “dropping coverage”?? Whew!
First the commentor says, “He[the employer] would be paying employees to opt out of the company plan.” When I point out that should this type of gaming of the system ever become a problem that it could simply be made illegal, he declares, [the employer is] “… not paying an employee to drop coverage.” Drawing a distinction between ‘opting out’ of coverage and ‘dropping coverage’ is patently a false distinction.
I think the commentor’s problem here is that he wants to claim that since the employee usually has the option of voluntarily dropping(opting out/whatever-you-want-to-call-it) of coverage during annual enrollment periods that this makes it impossible to make it illegal for an employer to PAY the employee to do so. But this is nonsensical.
But I do find it remarkable that someone who believes so strongly in the free market is so ready to intervene in the ability of an employer and his employee to work out a compensation package which is optimal to both. Because that’s what employee health insurance is – part of a compensation package.
But readers it was not I that was worried about employers gaming the system. It was the COMMENTOR that bought all this up and I simply pointed out how the commentor’s anxiety could easily be alleviated by a simple law making the gaming of the system illegal. Then the commentor went down the bumpy road of exquisite distinctions in attempts to prove that making such transactions illegal would be impossible – a nonsensical stance. In fact, easy legal remedies aside, I would not be worried very much about employers gaming the system vis a vis the GOP Universal Access Program.
Besides, Obamacare screws up the healthcare market so much that free market forces really have no chance of working as they would if the government did not interfere so much. The lack of the ability to buy insurance across state lines is only one example.
Me earlier: It’s not always easy to get treatment at VA hospitals and military bases, even if you are lucky to have one of those in proximity to where you end up living and working after retirement.
That’s not been my family’s experience. My military retiree father received excellent coverage at his local base hospital, with far less difficulty than he would have had going through the private medical system. My mom still receives great treatment there.
Well, as long as we are offering personal anecdotes as proof … I have worked with many military retirees over the years and it’s been my observation that most chose to use the employer insurance for mundane medical reasons because the nearest VA Hospital was almost a hundred miles away and the nearest military base where treatment could be received even further. On the other hand, using the employer insurance involved a 10 minute drive. I do remember one fellow that developed an expensive illness that switched to the VA because the co-payments to the civilian doctor and clinic were going to be rather high compared to the free treatment at the VA hospital. Expense trumped convenience, you might say.
Me, earlier: Or a competing employer, that does offer the benefit, could hire the worker out from under the employer that couldn’t offer the benefit. Free market forces.
Free market forces indeed. We’ll see how well that works in the current job market.
Good workers are always in demand. Jobs are to be had even in a high unemployment situation.
A quote from an article the commentor linked to:
“Milam says that in many cases, the insurance company that offered the group insurance will set up employees with an individual plan. Employees also can shop for an individual plan. Those with a pre-existing or chronic condition can turn to the state’s high-risk insurance pool.”
Nobody argues this point. But if the state is subsidizing the high-risk insurance pool, then more people losing group insurance will increase the amount of money that the state is having to pay to pick up the extra people who can’t get coverage due to pre-existing conditions. That’s been my basic point all along.
And my point all along has been that the GOP plan would be less costly than Obamacare and allow more folks to keep their group insurance.
Me earlier: I don’t have much faith in the MSM these days.
I’ll admit that I’ve found their coverage of the healthcare issues woefully lacking myself. Which is why people are running around arguing for forcing insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions but are also against a mandate. They’ve not been educated.
Me, earlier: My instinct would be to try incremental measures to reform healthcare and keep government out of it as much as possible.
My contention is that this is exactly what we’ve been doing for 20 years.
Well we haven’t allowed medical insurance to be sold over state lines – which has stifled competition and resulted in higher insurance prices.
We haven’t tried federal legislation to enact tort reform. Medical malpractice insurance in itself is very expensive and has no doubt contributed to the rise in the cost of healthcare but the hidden real cost is all the tests and procedures doctors have to resort to in order to protect themselves from malpractice suits. I’ve seen estimates that unneeded tests and procedures may contribute up to 25% of doctors’ and laboratory fees.
There are other things that could have been done but just these 2 measures could have helped out with rising healthcare costs.
Me, earlier: But why would an employee with a pre-existing condition “opt out of the company plan” in order to pay a premium 150% higher than the average premium in that state when the employee contribution to a standard, normal employee insurance benefit is usually much lower than that? What would be the motivation?
We’ve been through that – and your proposal is a rather draconian intervention by the government into the bargaining between an employee and employer, imo.
Making it illegal for employers to pay employees to drop their coverage would be … “draconian”??? But Obamacare, in which the government takes over 1/6th of the economy and which affects everyone in America is … NOT “draconian”??? WHOA!!
Me, earlier: Mere “high risk” workers without a pre-existing condition, by which the commentor means older workers, would not be eligible and thus not be subsidized by the GOP plan and thus no incentive would exist.
I would argue that older workers are substantially more likely to have a pre-existing condition which labels them “high risk”. Do you dispute this?
No, but just because someone may be “high risk” doesn’t mean they actually HAVE a pre-existing condition – it just means they might in the future.
Me, earlier: And I think an employer could find themselves in legal trouble in a hurry if the employer tried to start “sloughing off” older workers considering that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 protects anyone 40 or older from this sort of thing. All this comment about younger and older workers is beside the point.
Also, if any worker, young or old, develops a disability, which is frequently the case when a pre-existing condition manifests itself, they are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. I repeat: Anything can be made against the law.
You’re talking about worker discrimination. I guess there is a question whether employees who aren’t in the high risk pool could sue their employer for not offering them the same “opt out” bonus that would be attractive enough to get the employee with a pre-existing condition to do so. A creative employer could remedy this simply by allowing their insurer to expand the menu of coverage levels, vary the menu by employee background, and make a certain amount of employer-provided money to purchase into the plan (many companies do parts of this already) … with, once again, an “opt out bonus” if the employee decided to purchase insurance outside the system. It could thus easily incentivize higher risk employees to take the bonus and avail themselves of the state plan.
I guess I have to point out the obvious, which is that age discrimination laws do not apply to the young(“employees who aren’t in the high risk pool”) and thus the premise of the rather convoluted paragraph above is false.
Me, earlier: Perhaps if the commentor would do me and the readers the favor of providing us with a link to the source of his information about Obamacare then I could understand more about what is in the Obamacare bill.
In response the commentor offers a link to a Reuters article: http://tinyurl.com/yao2fhd
The problem is that the Reuters article is dated months ago. The Obamacare bill has undergone many changes since then. How can the commentor be sure that the legislation about to be passed is the same? Especially since the source is another organ of the Mainstream Media, a source with which even the commentor finds much fault(no pun intended) with:
I’ll admit that I’ve found their[the MSM] coverage of the healthcare issues woefully lacking myself.
balconesfault // Mar 19, 2010 at 3:05 pm
I think the commentor’s problem here is that he wants to claim that since the employee usually has the option of voluntarily dropping(opting out/whatever-you-want-to-call-it) of coverage during annual enrollment periods that this makes it impossible to make it illegal for an employer to PAY the employee to do so
Every year, one’s healthcare benefits are subject to unilateral modification by the employer. He can drop it, he can increase the worker contribution, he can increase deductibles and out-of-pocket caps. Unless there is a long term contract governing benefits (usually this is limited to union situations) the only recourse the employee has is to accept the change or quit.
But readers it was not I that was worried about employers gaming the system. It was the COMMENTOR that bought all this up and I simply pointed out how the commentor’s anxiety could easily be alleviated by a simple law making the gaming of the system illegal.
Yes, you are passing a simple law which restricts the terms an employer and employee can negotiate as a basis for compensation.
Besides, Obamacare screws up the healthcare market so much that free market forces really have no chance of working as they would if the government did not interfere so much. The lack of the ability to buy insurance across state lines is only one example.
You do realize that the current system is as it is not because of Federal fiat – but because of States Rights? Each state has claimed for itself the right to regulate insurance within their state, and to do so they require insurers to be chartered in their state. You are calling for the Federal Government to effectively override each state’s ability to regulate how insurance is sold within their borders.
Another policy which flies in the face of the Federalism policies usually espoused by conservatives.
We haven’t tried federal legislation to enact tort reform.
Again, an abrogation of state rights.
Making it illegal for employers to pay employees to drop their coverage would be … “draconian”???
Yes. As I noted before, my company will pay a decent annual bonus if we decide to rely on my wife’s insurance that year. You would ban this.
But Obamacare, in which the government takes over 1/6th of the economy and which affects everyone in America is … NOT “draconian”???
I’m not adverse to Government taking over healthcare … but this bill doesn’t do that.
I guess I have to point out the obvious, which is that age discrimination laws do not apply to the young(“employees who aren’t in the high risk pool”) and thus the premise of the rather convoluted paragraph above is false.
I think you misunderstood. My statement was that if a company went to some subset of their employee base and said “we will pay you 17K to opt out of our insurance plan this year (say the state plan for those with pre-existing conditions cost 15K, while the company plan cost the company 10K)”, someone not in that subset (particularly someone without pre-existing conditions who could go out and buy equivalent coverage on the open market for 12K) might rightfully claim that he’s being discriminated against for not having a pre-existing condition.
The problem is that the Reuters article is dated months ago. The Obamacare bill has undergone many changes since then.
Actually, no. That’s the whole point of the current debate over the Stupak Amendment. The language of the Senate Bill can’t be changed right now.
Yes, there is process for reconciliation. But I have not seen any discussion of expanding access to subsidies greater than in the reference I provided. I guess I can’t also promise that the final bill won’t promise a new pony to everyone, but I think the person claiming it will has the burden of proof here.
grackle // Mar 19, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Me, earlier: I think the commentor’s problem here is that he wants to claim that since the employee usually has the option of voluntarily dropping(opting out/whatever-you-want-to-call-it) of coverage during annual enrollment periods that this makes it impossible to make it illegal for an employer to PAY the employee to do so
Every year, one’s healthcare benefits are subject to unilateral modification by the employer. He can drop it, he can increase the worker contribution, he can increase deductibles and out-of-pocket caps. Unless there is a long term contract governing benefits (usually this is limited to union situations) the only recourse the employee has is to accept the change or quit.
Of course most employers, with some limitations, can drop healthcare benefits for ALL their workers, BUT they can’t drop them for some employees they deem “high risk” and not the other employees, which is what the commentor was saying could happen. Older(“high risk”) workers are well protected by law from such illegal discriminatory shenanigans.
And if the employer stops providing a healthcare benefit to(all) employees the employees are free to change employers and seek employment with competitors who provide the benefit.
Me, earlier: But readers it was not I that was worried about employers gaming the system. It was the COMMENTOR that bought all this up and I simply pointed out how the commentor’s anxiety could easily be alleviated by a simple law making the gaming of the system illegal.
Yes, you are passing a simple law which restricts the terms an employer and employee can negotiate as a basis for compensation.
Gee, on one hand the commentor calls it “gaming the system,” but when he thinks it might enhance his argument, which it really doesn’t, he calls it negotiating “as a basis for compensation.”
Me, earlier: Besides, ObamaCare screws up the healthcare market so much that free market forces really have no chance of working as they would if the government did not interfere so much. The lack of the ability to buy insurance across state lines is only one example.
You do realize that the current system is as it is not because of Federal fiat – but because of States Rights? Each state has claimed for itself the right to regulate insurance within their state, and to do so they require insurers to be chartered in their state. You are calling for the Federal Government to effectively override each state’s ability to regulate how insurance is sold within their borders. Another policy which flies in the face of the Federalism policies usually espoused by conservatives.
Me, earlier: We haven’t tried federal legislation to enact tort reform.
Again, an abrogation of state rights.
“States Rights”? When have I EVER written anything about “States Rights”? I believe that the consumer should be able to shop for medical insurance in the same manner that he shops for auto insurance – across state lines if need be. It would not harm “States Rights” one whit for this to come to pass. The commentor is setting up a ‘straw man.’
Me, earlier: Making it illegal for employers to pay employees to drop their coverage would be … “draconian”??? But Obamacare, in which the government takes over 1/6th of the economy and which affects everyone in America is … NOT “draconian”???
I’m not adverse to Government taking over healthcare … but this bill doesn’t do that.
Well, all I can say is that a LOT of folks disagree.
Yes. As I noted before, my company will pay a decent annual bonus if we decide to rely on my wife’s insurance that year. You would ban this.
No, I wouldn’t ban it. The commentor said he was worried that such practices as described in the above sentences would constitute “gaming the system” by employers. I wasn’t worried about it, HE was. As I’ve stated before, I don’t believe such “gaming” would be a problem. I simply asserted that if he was truly worried about it that a law could be passed to make it illegal for employers to pay their employees to drop their coverage.
He has since descended into a dark and convoluted cavern of exquisite distinctions in order to attempt to prove such practices could not be made illegal. And it turns out that although he is worried that employers would “game” the system by paying employees to drop their health coverage that he is only too happy to do it himself.
Me, earlier: I guess I have to point out the obvious, which is that age discrimination laws do not apply to the young(“employees who aren’t in the high risk pool”) and thus the premise of the rather convoluted paragraph above is false.
I think you misunderstood. My statement was that if a company went to some subset of their employee base …. [etc, etc.]
The commentor is now claiming that his statement was something other than what it was. I just can’t let him get away with that even though I kind of like ol’ Balcones. If he wants to now change his statement he is free to do so but I will not let him pretend that the changed statement was his original statement. For the record here is the statement in question reproduced exactly as he wrote it:
You’re talking about worker discrimination. I guess there is a question whether employees who aren’t in the high risk pool could sue their employer for not offering them the same “opt out” bonus that would be attractive enough to get the employee with a pre-existing condition to do so. A creative employer could remedy this simply by allowing their insurer to expand the menu of coverage levels, vary the menu by employee background, and make a certain amount of employer-provided money to purchase into the plan (many companies do parts of this already) … with, once again, an “opt out bonus” if the employee decided to purchase insurance outside the system. It could thus easily incentivize higher risk employees to take the bonus and avail themselves of the state plan.
And again I will point out the obvious, which is that age discrimination laws do not apply to the young(“employees who aren’t in the high risk pool”) and thus the premise of the rather convoluted paragraph above is false.
Me, earlier: The problem is that the Reuters article is dated months ago. The Obamacare bill has undergone many changes since then.
Actually, no. That’s the whole point of the current debate over the Stupak Amendment. The language of the Senate Bill can’t be changed right now.
Actually, YES. I’m kind of embarrassed for the commentor to have to point this out, but for instance, the Obamacare bill now possesses an element that was added just a few days ago having to do with part-time workers.
http://tinyurl.com/y8r25db
Speaking of Stupak, if the ObamaCare bill can’t be changed why has Stupak been holding firm against the bill until and unless certain language is added? Would Stupak insist on language to be added before he voted yes if language could NOT be added? Stupak has recently been arguing with Waxman and Hoyer on this issue.
http://tinyurl.com/yfrmlyc
http://tinyurl.com/yclt3re
Here again, the commentor is simply incorrect in a major assumption. The ObamaCare bill could have been changed in any number ways up until the latest CBO report on it. In fact Pelosi and company have spent weeks secretly changing elements of the ObamaCare bill in order to get a better CBO score on the thing.
http://tinyurl.com/yce5uuf
Yes, there is process for reconciliation. But I have not seen any discussion of expanding access to subsidies greater than in the reference I provided. I guess I can’t also promise that the final bill won’t promise a new pony to everyone, but I think the person claiming it will has the burden of proof here.
The commentor makes a statement based on a false assumption(the ObamaCare bill can’t be changed) but in his view I have the “burden of proof.” The bill HAS been changed. It has never been in any sort of unchangeable state until just recently. The Democrats could change it this very moment if they wanted to but they probably will not now that they have the CBO score they were looking for. Anyone who has followed the controversy should have known that.
And we are suppose to believe what the commentor says is in the bill because he has “not seen any discussion of expanding access to subsidies greater than in the reference I provided.” A reference, by the way, from a quarter that he doesn’t trust himself: “I’ll admit that I’ve found their[the MSM] coverage of the healthcare issues woefully lacking.”
Forgive me, readers, but I would not be making any bets in Vegas based on what “discussion” the commentor may or may not have stumbled across.
grackle // Mar 20, 2010 at 1:33 pm
The commentor linked to a Reuters article dated December 21, 2009 as a source of his assertions in regards to the ObamaCare bill and posted a quote from the article:
Federal subsidies will be available to help them afford coverage. The subsidies will be available for people with incomes up to 400 percent of the poverty level, about $88,200 for a family of four. The poverty levels for 2009 is $22,050 a year for a family of four and $10,830 for an individual.
http://tinyurl.com/yao2fhd
But we have no idea whether these figures are accurate because the ObamaCare bill has been changed many times since the date of the Reuters article, so I was a bit dubious and said so:
The problem is that the Reuters article is dated months ago. The Obamacare bill has undergone many changes since then. How can the commentor be sure that the legislation about to be passed is the same?
The commentor’s response: Actually, no. That’s the whole point of the current debate over the Stupak Amendment. The language of the Senate Bill can’t be changed right now.
But I knew just from watching FoxNews that Stupak has been trying for weeks to get the Senate to change the language in the bill so to claim it couldn’t be changed didn’t pass the smell test.
Now I have came across an article with some interesting information. It’s an article dated March 19 about the deals being made to flip ‘no’ votes in the House.
Tennessee’s congressional delegation successfully negotiated for $100 million in payments to state hospitals in the latest version of health care reform legislation, but officials said the arrangement isn’t a “special deal.”
Within 153 pages of revisions unveiled in Washington yesterday is language that gives Tennessee a combined $100 million in Medicaid “Disproportionate Share Hospital” payments in 2012 and 2013.
So, readers … as of March 18, TWO DAYS AGO, 153 pages of changes took place in the ObamaCare bill.
http://tinyurl.com/yktr95g
The commentor is a likeable guy and I am certain he is sincere in his belief in nationalized healthcare, although to believe as he evidently does that ObamaCare doesn’t represent the government taking over healthcare indicates that he doesn’t have a firm grasp on what is occurring. I have friends that hold the same viewpoint – good people, kindly people.
But they and the commentor need to watch FoxNews every once in awhile because FoxNews reports what CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, LAT, etc. won’t report. If they did they would know that Stupak has been wanting in recent weeks for the Senate to change the language on abortion in the bill and they would not be caught in a false assumption.
They need to peruse reputable and authentically conservative blogs, not just the anti-Tea Party, anti-Palin, not very conservative blogs such as Frum Forum, to get the stuff the MSM won’t tell them.
They need to read history written by historians educated before the 1960s in order to know the true significance of America – which is the most benign and benevolent great power the world has ever seen.
I was at a friend’s home back during the campaign and she had MSNBC on during the Rev. Wright controversy. During that news segment MSNBC NEVER ran clips of Wright’s inflammatory statements, just video of Wright doing some ordinary preaching. I was astounded. The MSNBC talking heads had an attitude of sad and incredulous puzzlement in their facial expressions, language and tones of voice that the Right would attack a nice fellow like Rev. Wright.
My friend and I discussed the Wright segment afterward. Her reaction was that the conservatives were prejudiced against Wright because he was preaching in that excitable style that some popular black preachers use – the dramatic delivery, gestures, emphatic voice and turn of phrase – and that Rightwingers held that against him.
When I told her that Wright had preached in that same pulpit that AIDS was the result of a conspiracy by the US government to commit genocide against blacks and that the US was behind the 9/11 attacks she flatly refused to believe Wright had said those things. MSNBC would have surely reported on such controversial beliefs if Wright had REALLY said such things, she said. I dropped the subject because she was becoming agitated. To this day I don’t think she has any idea why Wright would seem so controversial and probably chalks the controversy up to Rightwing bigotry.
Some of the MSM did feature some of Wright’s less crazy viewpoints, mostly in regards to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the bombing of Japan in WW2, Black Theology, etc., a lot of stuff that is essentially Progressive in it’s attitude toward history and current events, but what I saw was quick, incomplete and immediately glossed over by sympathetic talking heads.
My point is that most folks like the commentor live in an insular information world. They watch TV and read blogs that make them feel good about their ideology. Any news that challenges these beliefs either doesn’t get reported to them or it is fragmented, incomplete, sugarcoated and delivered so quickly as to be barely noticed. Thus they are surprised to learn certain things – such as the fact that behind closed doors that Obamacare has undergone many changes recently, a reality the MSM is not anxious to dwell on.
Why Obamacare is a Political Win for the Dems | FrumForum // Mar 29, 2010 at 12:46 am
[...] government takeover of the healthcare industry that may diminish the quality of healthcare. I’ll benefit but others may lose. The short term changes, furthermore, seem calculated to get votes by catering [...]
Trending North News » health reform illustrates why we need a VAT // Apr 15, 2010 at 4:44 pm
[...] care system. Conservative columnist Arthur Greene used the example of his wife’s illness to explain in detail how Obamacare will be a huge relief, illustrating how even an upper-middle class family can have serious problems in finding ways to [...]