Your diva will illustrate the healthcare mandate rift, via popular TV characters.
Posted by: Donna
Something occured to me as I watched the debate last night, during the 16 full minutes in which our 2 candidates accused each other of being the bigger universal coverage hater and yanker outer of the IVs of cancer-stricken Girl Scouts. Basically, their plans are about 95% similar but there is a crucial difference: Hillary wants to mandate some type of coverage for everyone while Barack wants to mandate coverage for children only.
Those who prefer Hillary’s idea cannot see why the Barack-sters can’t see the truth that is so searingingly obvious and vice versa. As I listened to the rhetoric that Hillary employed to justify her argument, and that of Barack as he defended his, I could see how each was couching policy positions to not only appeal to elements in their own bases, but to define the other side’s.
I will use proxies on loan from teevee to show how both candidates are cleverly painting a picture of their opposition: In this corner we have Carol Brady (you know the show). She’s a married mom. In this other corner we have Carrie Bradshaw (Sex and the City). She’s single and childless.
Carol Brady likes Hillary’s plan. She thinks mandates are the only way to get selfish martini-guzzling chippies like Carrie Bradshaw to pony up their fair share because god knows the premiums for her and Mike, plus the six kids are killing them. And here’s that empty suit huckster Barack telling her that they better get insurance for the children or face a fine. Meanwhile these free-wheeling slackers don’t have to miss a single snowboarding jaunt, until they land in the emergency room and we all get to pay for their sorry, irresponsible asses. Some Hope and Change there, Obama.
I mean, isn’t it obvious?
Carrie Bradshaw, on the other hand, listened to Hillary talk about “young people who think they are invincible”*. And “people who can afford coverage but don’t get it.” Well gee, she thinks to herself, wonder who those people might be? Oh yeah, everyone knows that if you’re not a parent, you have no living expenses to speak of and are flush with disposable cash for manicures and Manolos. Sure, she talks about subsidies, but we all know who will be sucking those subsidies up don’t we? Hey Carol, I already get to pay more income tax because Bill Clinton sent you guys a valentine in the form of those child tax credits in the 90s. Now you and your sperm dumplings** want to stick your hand in my pocket again, forcing me to pay full price for health insurance that I probably won’t use. Whoopie for Hillary. (That goes for you too, Barack, because I know you won’t be subsidizing my premiums either.)
I mean, isn’t it obvious?
Hillary and Barack know exactly what they are doing. Clinton has attracted more of the traditional family Democratic voters while Obama has captured more of the young singles and DINKs. That’s why she has mandates and he doesn’t. I’ll have more later about the specifics of their plans. All you need to know now is that they both suck and are NOT universal coverage. But it’s important to see that they are both playing to some deeply entrenched, and unspoken, demographic schisms in our party.
Because I’m a biased Obama supporter of the Carrie Bradshaw persuasion, and this is my post, I want to say that I don’t appreciate Hillary’s characterization of uninsured people in her speeches and debates, and the ease by which her supporters are adopting it. I’ve been in some heated debates on the progressive blogs about this and terms like “deadbeat” and “free rider” are being thrown around with disturbing regularity. Most ”deadbeats” are uninsured because they are in crappy jobs with no benefits or are self-employed. So how about you can it with the bogus framing that evokes images of Sex and the City gals slurping down Cosmos in Jimmy Choos, while sky-diving with parachutes made of cash? I promise I’ll stop calling your kids sperm dumplings if you do.
Honest,
Donna
*I realize my analogy is kind of mucked up here because Sarah Jessica Parker is no ingenue but I still think my point is made and Carol Brady/Carrie Bradshaw was the coolest alliterative pairing I could find.
** Yes, I am a horrible person but I coined the term this morning and it’s been cracking me up all day so it’s staying in my post.
8 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
That phrase cracked me up, too. Definitely vies with the one about “Romney being nuttier than a squirrel turd” as my favorite Donna-ism.
That is the way you are viewing it and I will disagree. The plans are not 95% the same. If we REALLY want health care for all me must be BOLD like Social Secuity in the 30’s and Medicare in the 60’s. They are both a mandate and they are successful. Everyone pays in and if you live long enough you get back. With health care everyone will pay they just wont have to wait. At the end of the day we are all democrats and one will win- so why spend time and effort putting Hillary down. We have someone to oppose it is McCain.
Dana, I’m actually putting both plans down. They both suck. I agree that we need to take a truly bold step with healthcare, like Social Security was. That bold step would be a true single payer, non-profit system with NO INSURANCE COMPANIES INVOLVED! They are the problem, not the solution. Both Hillary and Obama’s plans are giant giveaways to them, and hers is worse because it’ll be mandated. I don’t mind paying for true universal coverage, if it is an entitlement like SS or Medicare. Mandatory insurance is not the same thing and it saddens me to see people falling for the lie.
I think it is a fair characterization of both plans (and a humorous one). I think the reason we have these plans (non-single payer) is because politics is the art of the possible and these plans represent what is possible at the moment.
We could not create a single payer system in our current budgetary environment. We simple could not afford it. Couple that with the upheaval caused by implementing a single payer system and you have real problems. Like it or not a large portion of the US economy is wedded to healthcare. We have millions of people processing claims, selling insurance, administering programs and actually providing healthcare. While I would prefer a single payer healthcare system, I cannot reconcile in my mind how you transition several million workers from a private payroll to a government payroll or transition them to some other profession. The ripple affect would be enormous and rife with unintended consequences.
As far as the mandate question, it is fair to ask. I honestly think Obama chose to avoid mandates to blunt the attacks in the general. The simple fact is that Obama will likely have a pseudo mandate, meaning it will be so difficult to opt out that few people will manage to do it.
I agree with Dem Lament. We can’t get to universal single payer from where we are in one fell swoop. I see both plans as a step in the right direction. They might not be great, but they are better than what we have now.
BTW - someone has to keep the Democratic party populated, so call them sperm dumplings if you want, but I am raising 2 great Democrats in my house.
A dem, I understand what you are saying but I find the argument of “but people will be put out of work!” as specious as I do when people who oppose, say, environmental protection use it. Throughout history, technology and social developments have caused upheavals in the economy and people get put out of work because their jobs are rendered obsolete. As it is, the net harm that the parasitic health insurance industry does to our country greatly outweighs the benefits it provides through jobs.
As for how to pay for it, John Conyers has the plan laid out, including facts and figures at
www.hrc676.org
Katie,
Parenthood is one of those “third rails” of our society and sometimes I just gotta touch it a little bit. I meant no harm. Besides, it was important to what I was illustrating. And my being childless is worth 72 years of recycling.
To your argument that either health plan will be a step in the direction to single-payer, nothing could be further from the truth. Both plans will wed us to the insurance industry forever and in perpetuity. That’s the whole point of them and the people telling you otherwise are lying through their teeth.
Helps if I click more to read the intire post. Multitasking at it’s finest. I still think we have to go with everyone and make it mandatory. If anyone knows the healthcare system and delivery it is Hillary and heck if it is good enough for congress it is good enough for me!