by Allen Kolmes
Yesterday a friend sent the following, authored by a fellow physician. There appears to be two schools of Republican thought on healthcare reform--the "Health care reform sucks so bad that there is no point in offering any alternative solutions" school. The other school of thought being"Health care reform sucks because Obama's a socialist and wants to destroy America," expressed so eloquently at town hall meetings. Anyway, here is the link http://www.takebackmedicine.org/?p=1242 This one has a little Joe Wilson thrown in as well.
So...point by point:
I do agree with the first paragraph. While Joe Wilson proved himself to be an asshole, he certainly by no means proved himself to be a racist. I can easily see him yelling the same thing if it were President Hillary Clinton or President John Edwards. While his background (worked for Strom Thurmond, pointed out that the black woman purporting to be Strom's daughter was FOS --oops, can't win them all-,- supported flying the Confederate flag over the South Carolina capitol) makes him statistically more likely to be a racist than, say, Al Franken , it does not prove he is one. Liberals risk major credibility loss for little gain on this one. Would proving his racist-ness make him significantly more of a jerk than he already is? So, fellow liberals, let's just focus on the far-easier-to-prove notion that he is a serious butthead.
#1. Actually, I believe this. This is political Darwinism at its finest. There is a word for politicians who suggest that Americans might actually have to pay for something, no matter how worthwhile--Losers! Like, like when Bush announced that big tax hike to pay for the Iraq war and another tax hike to pay for the prescription drug benefit--he just got creamed in the 2004 election!
#2. I think there are a couple main points in this paragraph. First "poor Medicare reimbursement is forcing Doctors out of Medicare and therefore limiting the pool of doctors available to seniors" and "employees already cannot choose there doctors because they have no control over what healthcare options their employers choose." .
Aren't the problems being described here problems with the status quo? I have always cracked up listening to physicians complain about how bad Medicare reimbursement is and then without stopping for breath complain about how their taxes are too high, without once contemplating the inherent absurdity of these two positions.. Oh--but, but I know how we can lower our taxes and increase Medicare reimbursement to physicians--we can deficit spend!
Sorry to break the bad news, but downward pressure on both government and private reimbursement is going to be intense, with or without healthcare reform. Actually, the AMA cut a deal with the administration not to lower Medicare reimbursement in the near future in return for its support for one of the House bills. From a purely selfish perspective, might be time to get on board.
And how does pointing out one of the many ways in which private insurance sucks bolster the case against reforming it?
And finally, the author (I think unintentionally) points out that if an exchange or a public option exists, at least employees will actually have something to turn to when their employer drops their coverage when the employer can no longer afford it.
And we're going to see a lot of employers deciding they can't afford it. With or without reform.
#3. I'm getting carpal tunnel syndrome from writing about this one. Let me phrase it as a question this time. For the Republicans out there who have suddenly become converts to the cause of full-court-press money-is-no-object support of Medicare, I ask: so that we can provide the latest in chemotherapy to cancer patients, pacemakers to Rush's 100 year old, hip surgery for Michael Steele's 85-year old grandmother, and intubation, dialysis, and full-on ICU care for comatose 95-year olds, are you willing to pay your share of the bill? 'Cause the money to pay for all this comes from the T-word.
(for Sarah Palin fans--the "T-word" is taxes)
#4. I translate this as "even if the reform bill explictly prohibits federal funding for abortion, we'll end up with it anyway because that's what liberals do." Straight from the Glenn Beck School of Creative Thinking.
#5. Here is what I think the point of this paragraph is.
"Obama, first you say that 47 million are uninsured then you say 30 million. You lie!"
#6. First of all, given the existential threat that rising health care costs present, the amount of attention paid to the relatively small portion of health care expenses spent on illegal immigrants blows my mind (actually, sadly, it doesn't).
I read recently that thanks to the tireless efforts of that great healthcare advocate, Joe Wilson, Obama has proposed that illegal immigrants be barred from buying into the insurance exchange with their own money. Great idea--prevent mostly young, mostly healthy individuals from buying insurance and likely making it more affordable for the rest of us. Let them be uninsured, and then show up at the ER--where we end up paying for them.
Thanks, Joe!
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Doctors for/against health care reform. Whatever.
by Allen Kolmes
Has it escaped notice by the media that one of the interest groups most likely to be affected by healthcare reform--doctors--is among the least monolithic?
One would think that, as a doctor, I would have my finger on the pulse of physician opinion. Sadly, all I can offer is the perspective of the proverbial blind man touching an elephant.
Five years ago I had the misfortune of sitting at a my old hospital's Medical Executive Committee meeting the day after the 2004 election. The hospital was a religious institution. The chief of staff, who was chairing the meeting, announced his excitement at Bush's reelection--and, and, what was really cool was that the evangelicals were the keys to his election.
It was all I could do to keep from channeling my inner Joe Wilson. But keep quiet I did, like the liberal pussy that I am. And I am still working through that with my therapist.
By contrast, at my current hospital in the heart of Henry Waxman's district, I am tempted to buy a Hummer just so I don't have to spend ten minutes at the end of the day figuring out which Prius is mine.
The AMA, the single largest physician's organization, represents a whopping 29% of American doctors. The AMA's position on health care is hard to label. I would arbitrarily describe it as just-right-of-center. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/363/ehi1012.pdf
Actually, I would recommend that Republican politicians memorize this document in the unlikely event that they are ever asked what exactly they are in favor of in the health care debate.
So, for every Chief of Medical Staff who believes that Jesus helped W get reelected, there is me at a town hall meeting trying to outshout all the Sarah Palin fans. We probably neutralize each other. Which means that the IQ-under-70 conservatives, whom Glenn Beck has successfully mobilized, will be more influential in the fate of health care reform than doctors will be.
BTW, what set me off writing this was reading the following on Slate:
"Somebody forgot to tell doctors how terribly unpopular the public option is. Sixty-three percent of them support it, according to a new survey conducted by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, even though one of its chief purposes would be to pay doctors less. "
Which, BTW number 2, leads me to add something--I have a lot of respect for my peeps. Most doctors really want to do the right thing. We just need to work very hard on figuring out what that is.
Update: the day after I posted this it was on the front page that the AMA had come out in favor of health care reform as currently proposed. The price--a promise to freeze Medicare reimbursement levels in return for support. Per the Times, less than Pharma had to concede!
Go lobbyists for my profession!!
Has it escaped notice by the media that one of the interest groups most likely to be affected by healthcare reform--doctors--is among the least monolithic?
One would think that, as a doctor, I would have my finger on the pulse of physician opinion. Sadly, all I can offer is the perspective of the proverbial blind man touching an elephant.
Five years ago I had the misfortune of sitting at a my old hospital's Medical Executive Committee meeting the day after the 2004 election. The hospital was a religious institution. The chief of staff, who was chairing the meeting, announced his excitement at Bush's reelection--and, and, what was really cool was that the evangelicals were the keys to his election.
It was all I could do to keep from channeling my inner Joe Wilson. But keep quiet I did, like the liberal pussy that I am. And I am still working through that with my therapist.
By contrast, at my current hospital in the heart of Henry Waxman's district, I am tempted to buy a Hummer just so I don't have to spend ten minutes at the end of the day figuring out which Prius is mine.
The AMA, the single largest physician's organization, represents a whopping 29% of American doctors. The AMA's position on health care is hard to label. I would arbitrarily describe it as just-right-of-center. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/363/ehi1012.pdf
Actually, I would recommend that Republican politicians memorize this document in the unlikely event that they are ever asked what exactly they are in favor of in the health care debate.
So, for every Chief of Medical Staff who believes that Jesus helped W get reelected, there is me at a town hall meeting trying to outshout all the Sarah Palin fans. We probably neutralize each other. Which means that the IQ-under-70 conservatives, whom Glenn Beck has successfully mobilized, will be more influential in the fate of health care reform than doctors will be.
BTW, what set me off writing this was reading the following on Slate:
"Somebody forgot to tell doctors how terribly unpopular the public option is. Sixty-three percent of them support it, according to a new survey conducted by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, even though one of its chief purposes would be to pay doctors less. "
Which, BTW number 2, leads me to add something--I have a lot of respect for my peeps. Most doctors really want to do the right thing. We just need to work very hard on figuring out what that is.
Update: the day after I posted this it was on the front page that the AMA had come out in favor of health care reform as currently proposed. The price--a promise to freeze Medicare reimbursement levels in return for support. Per the Times, less than Pharma had to concede!
Go lobbyists for my profession!!
I Have Republican Envy
by Allen Kolmes
I am--I must admit it--kind of jeaous of the Republicans. The people they can get away with electing! I seriously envy them their assholes.
Take Tom Delay, for instance. "The Hammer." Why can't Democrats get serious pricks like that elected, much less Majority Leader. O that it could be so--that Steny Hoyer is called "The Dagger?" That Nancy Pelosi is "The Stilletto?" That when during Free Association exercises, when my shrink says "milktoast" I come up with something other than "Harry Reid."
Think about it. Where are the Democratic Ann Coulters, Dick Armeys, B1 Bob Dornans, Tom Tancredos, Rick Santorums (Santori?), James Inhofes, Michelle Bachmanns...the list goes on and on.
Also, I envy the right wing their undereducated noisy politically empowered idiots. Why can't we get an army of brain-dead liberals to plague Republican congressman town hall meetings with meaningless phrases shouted at the top of their lungs? Surely, the laws of the bell-shaped-curve dictate that there must be brain-cell-deficient liberals out there. So how do we get them up from the couch and screaming vapid, but at least somewhat correct, platitudes in the political arena? I'm not expecting much--I just want our morons to neutralize their morons.
So we need a liberal Sarah Palin.
To that end, I have put an ad on Craigslist:
"Wanted: charismatic politician with worldview of Dennis Kucinich but intellectual capacity of George W Bush.. Must be willing to be thrust into national limelight and be mocked on a daily basis. Must be willing to distill liberal message into four 2 syllable words or less."
I am--I must admit it--kind of jeaous of the Republicans. The people they can get away with electing! I seriously envy them their assholes.
Take Tom Delay, for instance. "The Hammer." Why can't Democrats get serious pricks like that elected, much less Majority Leader. O that it could be so--that Steny Hoyer is called "The Dagger?" That Nancy Pelosi is "The Stilletto?" That when during Free Association exercises, when my shrink says "milktoast" I come up with something other than "Harry Reid."
Think about it. Where are the Democratic Ann Coulters, Dick Armeys, B1 Bob Dornans, Tom Tancredos, Rick Santorums (Santori?), James Inhofes, Michelle Bachmanns...the list goes on and on.
Also, I envy the right wing their undereducated noisy politically empowered idiots. Why can't we get an army of brain-dead liberals to plague Republican congressman town hall meetings with meaningless phrases shouted at the top of their lungs? Surely, the laws of the bell-shaped-curve dictate that there must be brain-cell-deficient liberals out there. So how do we get them up from the couch and screaming vapid, but at least somewhat correct, platitudes in the political arena? I'm not expecting much--I just want our morons to neutralize their morons.
So we need a liberal Sarah Palin.
To that end, I have put an ad on Craigslist:
"Wanted: charismatic politician with worldview of Dennis Kucinich but intellectual capacity of George W Bush.. Must be willing to be thrust into national limelight and be mocked on a daily basis. Must be willing to distill liberal message into four 2 syllable words or less."
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Letter to the LA Times
By Allen Kolmes---
I recently wrote to the LA Times about something I read in last Sunday's opinion section.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-allen30-2009aug30,0,2592815.story
The topic was somewhat esoteric, not something that I am normally passionate about. What set me off was not so much the content (with which I do disagree) but the extreme vacuousness of the argument. The published version is here--
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/
Unfortunately, I did not keep it within the 150 word limit, so the better part of my letter got chopped off. Here is the original:
In her opinion piece, “Chew on This,” Charlotte Allen voices her disdain for a certain genre of social criticism that concerns itself with the actual cost, as opposed to the immediate monetary price, of the things we consume. However, while she clearly thinks these people are misguided, nowhere in her article does she actually explain how or why.
The lowering cost and increasing abundance of food and other goods in the modern economy has no doubt been a boon to humanity-- at least to those living above the subsistence level. However, behind the apparent—in terms of immediate ability to pay—affordability of food, furniture, clothing, gasoline, and all other consumables are substantial hidden costs. The decreasing price of commodities is often the result of corporations making great efforts towards paying as little as possible to the people who make and move the products they sell. Things are also often apparently inexpensive because the true costs—resource depletion, pollution of the air and water, etc, etc, are often passed on to future generations rather than being paid for by our own.
There is an ever increasing body of commentary devoted to discussion of these issues. This obviously annoys Ms. Allen. She would much prefer that we just enjoy the party and not worry about how it may be affecting the neighbors.
Ms. Allens argument can be summarized as follows:
1. I like things to be inexpensive.
2. If there are hidden social or environmental costs, I don’t want to know about them.
3. Nor do I care.
4. People who worry about such issues clearly have a screw loose.
This is an argument better suited to AM talk radio then the Op-Ed page of a major newspaper. I am sure there is a case to be made against the social critics in question. But it is nowhere to be found in this article.
I recently wrote to the LA Times about something I read in last Sunday's opinion section.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-allen30-2009aug30,0,2592815.story
The topic was somewhat esoteric, not something that I am normally passionate about. What set me off was not so much the content (with which I do disagree) but the extreme vacuousness of the argument. The published version is here--
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/
Unfortunately, I did not keep it within the 150 word limit, so the better part of my letter got chopped off. Here is the original:
In her opinion piece, “Chew on This,” Charlotte Allen voices her disdain for a certain genre of social criticism that concerns itself with the actual cost, as opposed to the immediate monetary price, of the things we consume. However, while she clearly thinks these people are misguided, nowhere in her article does she actually explain how or why.
The lowering cost and increasing abundance of food and other goods in the modern economy has no doubt been a boon to humanity-- at least to those living above the subsistence level. However, behind the apparent—in terms of immediate ability to pay—affordability of food, furniture, clothing, gasoline, and all other consumables are substantial hidden costs. The decreasing price of commodities is often the result of corporations making great efforts towards paying as little as possible to the people who make and move the products they sell. Things are also often apparently inexpensive because the true costs—resource depletion, pollution of the air and water, etc, etc, are often passed on to future generations rather than being paid for by our own.
There is an ever increasing body of commentary devoted to discussion of these issues. This obviously annoys Ms. Allen. She would much prefer that we just enjoy the party and not worry about how it may be affecting the neighbors.
Ms. Allens argument can be summarized as follows:
1. I like things to be inexpensive.
2. If there are hidden social or environmental costs, I don’t want to know about them.
3. Nor do I care.
4. People who worry about such issues clearly have a screw loose.
This is an argument better suited to AM talk radio then the Op-Ed page of a major newspaper. I am sure there is a case to be made against the social critics in question. But it is nowhere to be found in this article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)