The Liberal Elitist

To defeat the Tea Party, just show them for what they are

This is Dale Robertson, the self-proclaimed founder of the Tea Party, at a party even last year in Houston. 

The Washington Independent dug this up after Robertson suggested that Democrats may have planted people at Tea party events last week to cast racial slurs. The Washington Times quoted him as saying, ""These people could be anybody. I wouldn't put it past the Democrats to plant somebody there. They're trying to label the tea party, but I've never seen any racial slurs."

Tea Party apologists, from Sarah Palin on down, are trying to cast liberals as the villains in the background. The only way to fight these lies is to expose the truth.  

 

Health care reform is an anti-discrimination bill--and that's the ultimate case supporting it

We're within a day of a resolution of the most hard-fought legislative battle since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  A couple of days ago, I arrived at something of a Eureka moment on this issue, and, like any such moments, you wonder afterwards why it never dawned on you sooner. 

Health care reform is simply an anti-discrimination bill. I had not looked at it like that, but think about it:

If you're on Medicare or Medicaid, or if you are eligible for VA benefits, you get health care without worrying about whether you have been sick in the past or if you might get cancelled if you get sick in the future. The same is true if you are covered by a group insurance plan at work. While your exposure to risk is greater in this case, group insurance is tightly regulated and generally you don't have to worry about pre-existing conditions and cancellation because your claims were too high. 

If we compel insurers to cover autism, why is it wrong to compel them to cover pre-existing conditions? My state senator responds

I posted recently about contacting my state senator regarding legislation proposed in Missouri that would require insurance companies to cover very expensive therapies to treat children diagnosed with autism spectrum. 

My question was simple:  "Why do Republicans like yourself strongly support legislation like this but then oppose health care reform that simply requires companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions?" 

Senator Schmitt's chief of staff, Sean Furey, had the courtesy to call me today to discuss the matter. He pointed out that his boss felt that this problem had reached such a proportion that it was a legitimate function of government to compel private insurers to extend this coverage. I happen to agree with this position and support the legislation. 

A government takeover of health care? Think again

Consider these premises:

1. People who have health coverage through their employer generally have pretty good coverage (with some exceptions because there are some cheap plans out there that don't do much). 

2. People who have Medicare have good coverage, even exceptional.

3. People who have Medicaid have fairly good coverage, though not as good as these others in some respects (we like to tightly regulate the poor in this country, you know, and stigmatize them whenever we can). 

4. People who have individual coverage are the most vulnerable. They are subject to the most volatility in pricing, to pre-existing condition write-outs, to having their coverage dropped, etc. In general, it's safe to say that this individual market is pretty much of a mess. 

Still waiting for my state senator

A couple weeks ago I wrote a post on hypocrisy in the Missouri legislature, because there is broad GOP support in that body for a bill mandating that insurance companies provide very costly care to children on the autism spectrum. 

I favor this bill, and I'm glad the conservative Republicans do, too. But why do they so vehemently oppose health care reform--in large part because it constitutes interference in the private sector. The bill they support does the same thing!

I brought this up with my Democratic state representative who gave me a nice response on it, and who also pointed out that autism had tragically affected the families of some prominent Republicans. 

I have yet to hear from my state senator, Eric Schmitt, a Republican and a cosponsor of the bill. I got an email from his chief of staff who said he wanted to talk to me about my concern, and I gave him phone numbers where he could reach me.  He never called. 

Health care reform: the real story trumps the "narrative"

It's popular these days to talk about the "narrative" in politics. And, in that vein, it seems also popular to say that Obama has "lost control" of the narrative, and is thus suffering for it. 

In my other life, that of a brand strategist, I believe in the use of the narrative concept (shameless plug for my other blog, www.AdvertiseOrGoUnder.com). It's quite useful for explaining how a brand rises or falls, gains value or loses it, maintains relevance or does not. But I would be quick to add that narrative thinking is only a reflection of something larger. It's a small piece of the total puzzle.

Let's call that something larger the "real story," or, if you want to use the fancy language of semiotics, the "meta-narrative."  You might think of this as the story behind the story, or the higher story, or the hidden story. 

If health care reform passes, who seriously in Congress would vote to repeal it? Think about that for a minute. Anyone voting to repeal these extensive insurance reforms would have to be saying to their constituents: "We want to go back to the days when insurance companies can drop you or keep you out at will."