Palin-oia strikes deep
Image via Wikipedia
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you’re always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
“For What It’s Worth” by Stephen Stills
As I’ve spent the morning reading the commentary in response to the passage of the House health care reform bill, I find myself unable to get these lyrics out of my head.
Political disagreement is certainly nothing new in America. Nor is the fear of socialism that has accompanied every effort to reform our health care system since the era of “The Red Menace.” Yet, what is happening in reaction to the latest health care reform effort is something very new – something driven either by the actual paranoia of some of our nation’s leaders, or a conscious effort to sow paranoia among a nervous public – or both.
The people who want this bill have contempt for freedom,” Shadegg yelled just before heaving a copy of the 1,990-page bill onto the grass before tv cameras and the crowd. “They want to enslave you and take away your freedom and I won’t let them and you won’t let them.”
Via Time
Shadegg is not some errant, ‘beyond the mainstream’ protestor in the crowd. He is Rep. Tom Shadegg, Republican of Arizona and a Member of Congress since 1995. So it is not unreasonable to ask who Rep. Shadegg thinks is looking to enslave us and, more importantly, why?
Despite extremist efforts to paint President Obama in some bizarre colors, let’s face it – he’s not the Manchurian Candidate and has no more interest in creating a socialistic system of government than did George W. Bush. Just look at the record. On the one hand, those who oppose the President accuse him of handing out huge sums of free taxpayer money in support of Wall Street (hardly a bastion of socialism) while, on the other hand, they accuse the President of being a socialist, or worse. I don’t see how you can have this both ways. Either hate the President for being a devotee of the most extreme practices of the free market system represented by Wall Street, or hate him for moving towards socialism, but logic requires that it can’t be both.
I appreciate that there are many in the nation who view health care reform as too expensive a step to take during a time of economic crisis. I also understand that many see an expansion of government’s role in health care as a step in the wrong direction given that we live in a country conceived on the concept of limited federal government with most powers reserved to the states. All of these arguments against a federalized approach to health care are defensible arguments based in fact and reasoned opinion.
But I simply cannot understand what leads one to the conclusion that the attempt to improve health care – even if one drastically disagrees with the timing or direction of that effort – is somehow happening in furtherance of a plot to enslave Americans. In the absence of substantive evidence to support such a conclusion, is this not the very definition of paranoia?
The only explanation I can conjure up in defense of those who express such serious fear is the belief that reforming the health system through increased government involvement will somehow lead us to a totalitarian government, based on a socialistic society and not unlike those governments that have long been the enemies of this country and antithetical to the American way of life.
Yet, the true examples that would be far more on point – even were we to find ourselves with a government controlled health system- are not the Soviet Union of years gone by or whatever repressive, totalitarian society one might look to as the possible result of the health care reform effort. The comparison should be to the western governments, far more similar to our own, who have taken the government-centric approach to medicine. I’m speaking of countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada and France, to name but a few.
These nations all have socialized systems of medicine yet are hardly examples of totalitarian governments.
Many will be quick to argue, “But look at all the problems with their health care systems. Do we want to follow their example of excessive waiting problems and rationing, not to mention the government telling us what treatments we can and cannot have?”
While this argument may have merit, to use it for the purpose of suggesting that a federally based health care system would lead us to a totalitarian government that enslaves the people is to pull a ’switcheroo’ on the debate and is, therefore, completely disingenuous.
We can argue over the pros and cons of health care systems operated and financed by centralized government but what does this have to do with ‘enslaving’ the population? Shouldn’t there be some fairly hard-core evidence of such evil intent when leveling so serious a charge against elements of our government? To suggest that this is what is occurring clearly goes well beyond government action that might – or might not- be a misstep in health care policy.
It takes a high degree of paranoia not to be capable of recognizing that those who support changing the way we go about providing health care – including those who favor a single-payer nationalized system- are not engaged in an effort to take control over our lives to serve some nefarious purpose. Besides, the evidence just is not there to support such a point of view.The federal government has run the medical program for almost a third of the population for half a century now and I simply cannot see where it has led to the curtailment of our rights as citizens. Nobody has told a Medicare participant that they must be in the program. It is there for them if they want it. As we know, the overwhelming majority of those who are eligible choose to participate- not for political reasons but because the coverage is better than what they can get elsewhere.
Indeed, had Medicare led to the enslavement of Americans through a socialized medical system, Rep. Shadegg would not have the freedom to utter such statements against the government, would he?
As for the argument that mandated health coverage for all Americans represents the downfall of our society as we know it, I can tell you that I am not a big fan of mandated insurance. But let us not forget why it is there. This is a concession designed to help the health insurance companies increase their market share in light of having to offer better coverage to their customers. This is hardly a step in the direction of a socialistic society nor much of an indication that we are to be sent into the fields to toil at the pleasure of our government masters.
Accordingly, we are left to wonder whether leaders like Rep. Shadegg – who are running around screaming that the American sky is falling- actually believe what they are saying, thereby expressing their own deep paranoia, or if they are simply putting it out there in the effort to make other Americans paranoid so as to bend the national will to a particular way of thinking.
Which brings us to Sarah Palin.
In response to the passage of yesterday’s landmark bill, ex-Governor Palin returned to her Facebook page to once again carry on the ‘death panel’ harangue .
We had been told there were no ‘death panels’ in the bill. But look closely at the provision mandating bureaucratic panels that will be calling the shots regarding who will receive government health care.
Despite the fact that this foolishness has been widely discredited, as well it should be, Palin perseveres. Is Palin truly this paranoid or is she trying to simply scare the hell out of us? Has it occurred to her that many who voted in favor of this provision are, themselves, among the senior citizens who would be put to death when ill should Palin prove to be correct?
Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it will creep. It starts when you’re always afraid.
And isn’t that what this is really about? Fear of change? Fear of losing one’s seat in office? Fear of the unknown? Fear of losing campaign funds from wealthy health insurance companies?
We have a problem in this country when it comes to health care- but it is not a problem that will be solved by being afraid to try new approaches when the current one is not working. If the new ideas don’t work, change them. In the meantime, let’s try and get the paranoia under control.
To that end, might we be better off if we spent less time screaming about what the founding fathers wanted our government to look like more than two hundred years after they were dead and focus more on the courage they showed in creating this country?
I think they would be the first to say that a frightened country is the true threat to the way of life they made possible.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Rick,
I don’t speak for the anti-health care people but here are some possible reasons why they would engage in irrational arguments:
1) Logical arguments against health care falter against the clear and convincing evidence that every other industrialized nation in the world has offered its citizens universal health care, and they’ve all kept it.
2) The anti-health care people are actually the anti-rationality people – being against health-care is just a symptom. Certainly, many extremists (right or left) view rationality as the enemy because rational thought exposes their insanity.
3) They have a terrain map in their heads that shows exactly where the slippery slope trends towards totalitarianism. If this is the case, I wish they would share it, because I can’t picture it.
4) They just want the “liberals” to lose and they don’t care how much it costs the country to secure victory.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Warren Jarog and rickungar, Tweets Tube. Tweets Tube said: Palin-oia strikes deep http://bit.ly/4y0N6o [...]
The sad part about Ms. Palin’s story is that I have yet to see her offer up one meaningful idea to the debate. All it has been is lies coming from her camp.
@misterb – I would say at this point, #4 rings the most true. I don’t think any of them truly care about what’s going on outside their own little worlds.
Palin-oia will destroya?
good one.
In response to another comment. See in context »Good points. There’s also something creepy about language’s lack of meaning with some of these people. I’ve actually had conversations with people who consider Obama a communist where I said “just look at his record – why would a Marxist give billions to bankers?” and the response is either “his record doesn’t matter – he was raised by Marxists!” or “those bankers are probably Marxists, too.”
All of which leads me to believe that the vast majority of Americans making this argument have literally no idea what Marxism is, save for a few choice factoids they got from Limbaugh or Palin or whoever (”Marxism = a bad thing”). Worse: they seem proud of their ignorance; to actually know anything about this hated political philosophy is to be an enemy of democracy (another word they use without knowing its meaning). I wish we could at least have a common vocabulary here; it would at least clarify what people are talking about. But our media seems unwilling to take that step back and ask what’s actually being discussed, so instead we get NPR’s wretched “on the road with the tea parties” series, and other bits of inane infotainment. And that’s not helping anyone.
The American Medical Association, American
Cancer Society, and American Association of
Retired Persons (AARP) all support meaningful
health delivery reform with a genuine public option that’s not simply a repository for people the insurance companies don’t want to cover.
Andrew Weill, M.D. supports it, the Cleveland
Clinic’s Steven Nissen, M.D. supports it, virtually all Nursing Associations support it, virtually all Public Health Associations support it, Isadore Rosenfeld, M.D. passionately supported it on his Fox News/Health TV segment, etc.
Only 4 companies, 5 counting Humana, dominate the market. The thousands of plans are mostly theirs, the whole idea behind the multitude being adverse selection: when their computers indicate any particular plans are the next likeliest to fail meeting their medical service ratio goals, they send letters to the participants indicating they’re welcome to stay but their policies are frozen. That letter means they’re in a premium price spiral.
Changing plans means exclusions, including for anything yet to be discovered by the nurse who comes to check those not presenting known pre-existing conditions.
The state-by-state rules are a constitutional
piece of b.s. It only facilitates the same process–slicing and dicing so as to send persons who might need medical service packing.
That’s a shell game, as conservative President Ronald Reagan’s Surgeon General, Everett Koop, M.D., once said.
Is it actually a fraud? How long will it be until class action firms see the forest through the trees (NOT ADVICE–SEEK YOUR OWN LEGAL SERVICES.)
Yet, the insurers enjoy an exemption to the anti-trust laws.
The free market system is fine, but apparently the opponents of reform can’t distinguish that from a simple scam. A meaningful public option is aimed at providing choice, keeping the insurance companies honest.
The health insurance system in the U.S. today is a shell game with no recourse allowed.
What’s the difference between that and Vito Corleone making offers people can’t refuse?
Medicare is National Health Insurance for those 65 and older, precisely because the insurance companies don’t want to cover them
They get sick.
Paul Hochfeld, M.D.
http://www.madashelldoctors.com/
The industry is having built into the public option a design-to-
fail system (deliberate adverse selection) so they can say “look, the government can’t run a
health system.”
“California’s Real Death Panels: Insurers Deny 21% of Claims ”
“PacifiCare’s Denials 40%, Cigna’s 33% in First Half of 2009″
http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/press-releases/2009/september/california-s-real-death-panels-insurers-deny-21-of-claims.html
Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year — one every 12 minutes — in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found.
http://sites.google.com/site/evernewecon
Rick,
This is an important post, echoed today by Paul Krugman in The New York Times (”Paranoia Strikes Deep”). Instead of a constructive opposition today or even a vociferous one, this country has an opposing party that increasingly is frothing at the mouth. Where fear has long been a tactic (remember the wolves circling in George W. Bush’s ad against John Kerry), it has never in my memory been carried to such extremes. Sadly, and I believe potentially dangerously, the Republican right lives in an echo chamber so constricted in its viewpoints that fear is no long a tactic but instead their reality. Keep up your excellent and reasoned writing on this topic.
[...] Paul Krugman’s column in today’s New York Times, “Paranoia Strikes Deep,” or Rick Ungar’s post yesterday on True/Slant, aptly (and remarkably similarly) titled “Palin-oia Strikes [...]
Your focus is too narrow. This has little to do with health care, IMO, and more to do with, to paraphrase the President, a clinging to a dying culture.
Look at the protest groups. They are 99.99% white, middle aged or older and for the most part working class. They are witnessing the end of their position of power and influence within America and the natural reaction is to lash out at anything they see contributing to that end. I wouldn’t say they are overt racist but Obama is representative, America is becoming more brown, more yellow, less white.
They are stoked on by the right wing radio broadcasters, folks like Palin and elected officials who have no interest in putting anything forward for the national good but would rather keep those flames of hatred going. Because that means they sell more ad space, more books, get more speaking engagements, get reelected.
Honestly, when you equate health care reform with Dachau you’ve pretty much signaled that you have no interest in serious debate on this topic. Not to mention the irony of claiming this is equivalent to the determined efforts to kill every last Jew in Europe and then go on and say it is also a Rothschild conspiracy shows the level of their conspiracy paranoia and lack of historical knowledge…
And even if you were a Republican who wanted to debate the financial merits I would have a hard time taking you serious unless you could show you were somehow also appalled and combative about the run up of the national debt between 2000-2006. Truthfully, they want nothing to do with this except to obstruct like petulant children…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMdlcnK_MI4&feature=player_embedded
…and that being the case they should no longer have any say in the matter.
Basically, screw them, the country is moving, they can cling to their guns and religion and die out in the political wilderness. Perhaps within a few years, as the GOP as gone way of the Whigs a more mature and responsible group will take up the conservative mantle, for we need a balance of left and right in our government and those who govern, but the current format of conservatism gives us nothing.