Healthcare Reform: Between a Rapier and a Sledgehammer

Posted: September 20, 2011 by jerkmag in RANT -- politics
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One thing about my political posts you might notice is that they might seem very blunt and almost confrontational. This is not a mistake on my part. When it comes to politics, given the choice between the rapier or the sledgehammer, I reach for the blunt object.

This is how I filibuster.

My reasoning for this really came about during the initial healthcare debates. When I saw so many of my fellow Americans yelling, screaming, enraged and in an uproar, my first reaction was “All right! Finally some outrage at the injustice of the healthcare system.” But no, these Americans were rallying AGAINST reform. Not only that, but these same Americans were also convinced, irrevocably, that our president is the most vile Nazi, Socialist, Muslim, Communist, Black Supremacist, Baby Eater on the planet.

Sliding scale of Communist facial hair.

This is why I use the sledgehammer because, the way I see it, it’s not rapier-like. When you resort to demonization at this level as well as a complete and utter disregard for the well-being of your fellow American, I feel a witty riposte is not the way to go. Also, I feel very strongly, that there is a lack of any real fortitude when it comes to the Democratic Party. No one likes to point out that the Tea Party people who make signs comparing Obama and his policies to Hitler or Stalin are likely the same people in an uproar about Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” comment supposedly about Sarah Palin.

This astounding level of blind extremism has particularly been brought to light yet again in Ron Paul’s response at last week’s CNN Tea Party debate. Now, I’ll say this much: in this particular instance, it’s not Ron Paul himself that did or said anything directly horrible. And it’s not the leader’s response that strike me, it’s the response of the people. It is utterly devoid of empathy, humanity and anything else that resembles decency.

My perspective on this may be a bit skewed, but I sincerely doubt that most of these people have ever had to watch someone they cared for slowly waste away and writhe in agony. Forced to watch as they thrash about in a seizure that marks them as a healthcare pariah with a “preexisting condition.” Should society just let them die and suffer?

According to this group, yes. I just love Ron Paul’s laughable response on how people in the community (and church) should buddy up to help this man in need. Unifying for a common social good. Anyone else think this sounds a bit, I don’t know…socialist?

-Alex Perez

Comments
  1. Kathleen says:

    I wanted to ask Ron Paul, what if the 30 year old doesn’t have insurance because he was born with a pre-existing condition? He might be fully willing and able to carry insurance, but no insurer is willing to sell him any. In this case, he’s willing to take personal responsibility and buy insurance, but because of being born with a pre-existing condition, they won’t let him buy it.

    When countered with the idea of people with pre-existing conditions not being able to buy insurance, Republicans like to counter by asking why they should pay for a bypass operation for a person who chose to overeat and never exercise, or pay for chemotherapy for someone who smoked for 20 years. They forget about the person who was born with a condition, or a person who has a condition as a result of an accident, or someone to whom the condition just happened through no fault of that person.

    That person CAN’T take personal responsibility Dr. Paul. Not because he doesn’t want to, but because insurers won’t sell him any coverage. He doesn’t expect the government to take care of him. He just wants the ability to buy insurance so that he can take care of himself.

    On the positive side, that will go away in 2014 due to the health care reforms enacted last year. On the negative side, the GOP wants to make sure that it doesn’t go away in 2014. The GOP wants to repeal the law that will prevent people from being excluded due to pre-existing conditions. So, you can argue all you want about personal responsibility, Dr. Paul, but it is YOUR party, the Republicans, who want to make sure the a person with a pre-existing condition is not able to take personal responsibility for his health care, because under your party’s views, a person born with a pre-existing condition can’t take out a major medical policy.

  2. […] and the bailouts back in  2009. Normally, I’d insert some witty quip here, but if you read my last article, you’ll know I appreciate the sledgehammer. So, I’ll change it up a bit and leave you with the […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s