Solution by Re-Definition

[velvetpage]

You know that thing about how 45 million Americans have no health insurance? Well, the McCain campaign has come up with a way of making the problem disappear.

I'd like to direct your attention to the following quote:

Mr. Goodman, who helped craft Sen. John McCain's health care policy, said anyone with access to an emergency room effectively has insurance, albeit the government acts as the payer of last resort. (Hospital emergency rooms by law cannot turn away a patient in need of immediate care.)

"So I have a solution. And it will cost not one thin dime," Mr. Goodman said. "The next president of the United States should sign an executive order requiring the Census Bureau to cease and desist from describing any American – even illegal aliens – as uninsured. Instead, the bureau should categorize people according to the likely source of payment should they need care.

"So, there you have it. Voila! Problem solved."

I don't even know where to begin categorizing the monumental stupidity of that statement. Does this guy really not understand that going to an emergency room for the care offered there - and being billed into bankruptcy for it - is very, very different from getting routine care on a regular basis before the problems get out of hand? Has he never heard the term, "preventative medicine"?

I just don't get it. How can this possibly be anything positive? It's just another way to sidestep a problem and pretend it doesn't exist, when millions of people can attest that, yes, it DOES. I would have more respect for a campaign that said, "You know, this is a problem, but it's something that should be solved on state level." That's passing the buck, true, but it's politically defensible and it at least recognizes that there is a problem. But this? It's assinine and dishonest and uncaring.

Link courtesy of wyldraven.

Comments

[dagoski.livejournal.com]

No, he understands very well. This is another instance of the morality driven economic view of so many conservatives in the US right now. They believe that if you wind up in the emergency room it is because of something wrong you did. I have heard this attitude voiced both in the media using code words and straight up in person in conversations with conservative acquaintances. Very few of these people understand just what it means to be drive to bankruptcy by medical bills.

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

Yes, this does seem to be another solid example of the "poverty is a sign of fundamental moral weakness" ethos that seems to appear, at times more strongly, at others less so, in the USA.

[merlyn4401.livejournal.com]

I'd just like to point out that just because someone associated with McCain's campaign said this does not mean the the McCain campaign (or McCain himself) endorses it.

That said, the idea is purely idiotic.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Given how high up in McCain's campaign this guy appears to be, I'm not accepting that cop-out. His top advisors say these things to nationally-syndicated news stations? It might as well have come from the horse's mouth. If it's not party line, and they're representing the party, they shouldn't be saying it.

If you link me to a spot where McCain categorically denies that he thinks this way - with a quote - then I'll grant it. Otherwise? That's a nice little bubble of candidate infallibility there. If you get the advisors to say all the controversial stuff so that supporters will let you personally off the hook, then you're a dishonest candidate.

[merlyn4401.livejournal.com]

It IS a bubble of candidate infallibility, and it applies to both candidates. That's like holding Obama responsible for what Wright said. Yes, he repudiated it...eventually. It certainly took him longer than the day this article has been out.

Both candidates are surrounded by "advisers" who often speak without the candidate knowing what the hell is going to come out of their mouths. I don't hold Obama responsible for his follower's gaffes unless he explicitly endorses them, and I don't hold McCain responsible for HIS followers gaffes unless he explicitly endorses them. That's unfair to both candidates.

That's just the way I look at it. YMMV, of course.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Of course it applies to both candidates. But Obama took a nuanced approach to disagreeing with Wright at first, and I admired that. It didn't end up working, because Wright kept spewing forth vitriol, but he made an attempt to deny the words without denying the relationship, and I appreciated the distinction.

I'm still waiting to see if McCain will repudiate this. It's new, so he's got a little while to manage it before the shit starts to stick to him. If and when he repudiates it, I'll retract.

Because Canada's is a parliamentary system, toeing the party line is even more important here. There is no clear distinction between the office of the Prime Minister and the party he leads, so it can be assumed that someone close to the PM who makes this kind of gaffe is speaking for the party - or they're going to find themselves demoted out of Cabinet. If they're not demoted, it's presumed that they've got their party's endorsement. It is a slightly different outlook. Some parties let it be known that their members have free reign and don't speak for the party. Others rule the party and members' opinions with a heavier hand. It looks to me like the American parties slide right down the middle - not policing the sound bites before they go out as our Liberals would, but also not accepting responsibility when something is said but no one is held accountable.

[bodhifox.livejournal.com]

McCain said no one with assets of under $5 million is rich.

He'll probably pick Romney to run with him.

Two multi-millionaires don't have to worry about the health care the rest of us may or may not get. And hospitals are closing down because of strategies like the one mentioned, especially in impoverished areas. And what about the people in Appalachia, or Mississippi, or Arizona with no hospital nearby and no doctors who would *have* to see them?

[merlyn4401.livejournal.com]

PS. I did find out that that actually came from his blog, not in an interview.

http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/uninsurance-problem-solved-by-executive-order/

It appears to be more a somewhat tongue-in-cheek complaint about the definition of uninsured and the numbers thrown around than an actual suggestion for policy. Some of his other blog entries are interesting reading as well, although I don't agree with everything he says.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link. It would seem that the summary is, "An awful lot of people would have access to medical care if they asked for it/really needed it/bothered to get it. They shouldn't be considered amongst the ranks of the uninsured in that case." Basically, it's the myth of the welfare abuser, medicaid edition: in theory, all these people should be able to get insurance, so if they don't ACTUALLY have insurance, it's because they're screwing the system/lying/being lazy.

I don't buy it. First off, I don't buy the idea that most people are going to lie, cheat, and steal their health care when they could otherwise afford it if they tried. Secondly, I don't buy the idea that so many COULD find jobs that would offer them insurance. Thirdly, I don't buy that they SHOULD do that - it's limiting people's job choices and putting a stranglehold on small business by denying them people who need the health care too much to take a job without one. Fourthly, I don't buy the passing of blame to the uninsured. Even if it's true in a small percentage of cases, it's unlikely to be true enough to discount the magnitude of the problem.

[merlyn4401.livejournal.com]

I totally buy that there are people out there who qualify for various kinds on insurance who don't take advantage of it. I was one of them before I married Gord. I had access to insurance through work and didn't buy it. I had better things to spend my money on. ;) OBVIOUSLY this isn't true across the board, and obviously there are people who are either ineligible for what's out there, or uneducated on how to get it.

(and I still don't think he is speaking for the McCain campaign. :D)

[paka.livejournal.com]

This isn't too surprising, but thank you for pointing it out anyway.

[neebs.livejournal.com]

Grrrr. This reminds me of when the Olympics were in Atlanta, so they bussed all the homeless people in the city to a hotel in FL. And then declared that "Atlanta does not have an issue of homelessness."

*HEADDESK*

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

Well, there are both short-term and long-term solutions to problems. For a very brief period of time, Atlanta had much less of an evident issue of homelessness than it had before they bussed these folks to a hotel in FL and provided them with an (albeit temporary) home.

[kesmun.livejournal.com]

This doesn't even address the underinsured.

Unfortunately, McCain seems to have surrounded himself with people who don't know when to keep their mouths shut or their hands off the keyboard. You're known by the company you keep, and if you're among a bunch of ignorant, privilege-conscious idiots, you're going to be painted as an ignorant, privilege-conscious idiot, whether you are one or not.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Yep.

[integritysinger.livejournal.com]

as someone who has been uninsured for four years... "WTF!?"

and you can quote me.
lol

[redeem147.livejournal.com]

Huh? I believe that qualifies as insane.

Too bad you can't get that treated at emergency.

[hannahmorgan.livejournal.com]

I bet lots of emergency room physicians and nurses are thinking hard about their vote....oy!

[wrkclsvoice.livejournal.com]

Can't Canada invade us or something. All our troops are overseas, so how hard could it be. They could impose a decent government on us, and we could still avoid the Canadian winters.

Oh, and stabbing Mr Goodman would qualify you for some of that not toooo bad prison health care.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Our PM is too much in Bush's back pocket to ever condone that. And there's a good chance our federal election will happen before yours, so we'll be rather busy.

North America, home of the right-wing leaders

[wrkclsvoice.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's true. Between Stephen Harper, George W Bush, and Felipe Calderón, we have the three stoges of world leaders. God, what's up with North American voters. We must look like a bunch of dopes to the Europeans and South Americans.

Re: North America, home of the right-wing leaders

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

In Canada's defense, less than a third of our nation voted for the current PM, and his government is a minority one. The majority of us DIDN'T vote for him, and won't next time, either - but he'll land another minority because there is no one better at the moment who has a prayer of winning any seats west of Ontario.

Re: North America, home of the right-wing leaders

[wrkclsvoice.livejournal.com]

I have to brush up on my Parliamentary system of government. I always liked how flexible your system is, but ours has the benefit of simplicity.

Re: North America, home of the right-wing leaders

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

In a nutshell: we don't elect a prime minister directly, we elect a member of parliament in each electoral district (riding.) The party with the most members elected is asked to form a government by the Queen's representative (who is appointed by the previous prime minister) and the leader of that party becomes the PM.

This means that in order to get a seat in Parliament, a new party has to get more votes than any other party in one riding. If there's only two parties, that means 50% of the vote, but it's quite common for three or four parties each to get a sizeable chunk of the vote in any given riding. Most of the time, though, it's a three-way race. There have been several elections lately where the Liberals got a majority of the seats in Parliament while taking home about 35% of the popular vote, because the vote was split so finely in many ridings that the count had to be very precise. The guy who won in my riding last time won by less than seven hundred votes, out of some forty thousand cast.

We need parliamentary reform, but the parties that are in power have no interest in seeing it happen - they're benefitting from this system quite nicely.

Re: North America, home of the right-wing leaders

[wrkclsvoice.livejournal.com]

Your system is much more Third Party friendly, but still "winner take all" like ours. You can have a party in power that 66% of the electorate didn't vote for. That is interesting... You don't do the "coalition government" thing up there?

It's also less democratic since the people don't pick the PM directly. Canada is a more advanced country than the US, so it works, even if it's imperfect.

Re: North America, home of the right-wing leaders

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

In most republics, the office of the Head of State is separate from the office of the Prime Minister. France, for example, has both an elected president and a Prime Minister elected in a system similar to Canada's. The States is weird that way in that the two offices are combined, leading to one fewer check and balance.

We do the coalition government thing if there's a minority, if two parties can agree enough to make it work. At the moment they can't, so we're going one bill to the next while the PM looks for a way to bring down parliament.

There have been suggestions about proportional representation. There was even a vote on it in Ontario last year. But it was defeated, mostly because the information about it was bad or non-existent. One of the reasons I sometimes vote Green is because the Greens promise to bring in some form of PR, and I think it would be a better thing for the country if they did.

Re: North America, home of the right-wing leaders

[wrkclsvoice.livejournal.com]

Hello again! I thought I'd ask another question, if you don't mind, about the parliamentary system. I often hear of "no confidence votes" and governments falling with special elections being called to replace them. This idea is very appealing because Americans can make some pretty bad decisions in the ballot booth, and it would be great to have another way to get rid of an Administration or Congress, other than waiting till the next election. The Bush Administration has been eight years of "no confidence" and it would be under constant pressure to be more fair and effective if it could be fired. Does Canada do this, and how does it work? Thanks.

Re: North America, home of the right-wing leaders

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Certain bills are always bills of confidence (like a finance bill) and other bills can be made bills of confidence at the discretion of the person presenting them, and there is such thing as a simple confidence motion. What happens is that every MP votes, and if the motion/bill passes with more than half the MPs voting for it, then Parliament is said to have confidence in the government and it stands. If it fails, the result is that Parliament does NOT have confidence in the government, and the prime minister is required to request that the governor-general dissolve parliament, which triggers an election.

However - and this is a big however - the two biggest parties are centrally controlled, meaning the leader of the party requires his MPs to toe the party line. They can and do kick people out of the party who don't follow closely enough. If a party has a majority government and tells its members that they must vote the party's bill or risk being kicked out of the party, most will do it. So votes of no confidence usually happen in minority government situations, when all opposition parties can gang up on the governing party and bring them down.

This time around, everyone knew the Liberals weren't ready for an election. The PM has spent half his term in office playing political chicken, proposing things he knew the Liberals would hate, in order to tempt them into a vote of no confidence. Since Canadians didn't want an election, there was a chance that forcing an election would backfire on the Liberals, resulting in a majority government for the Conservatives. But the Liberals refused to rise to the bait, so Harper dissolved Parliament without waiting for a vote of no confidence.