Classism: Is Republican Rejection of Universal Health Care a Form of Discrimination?

After MOMocrats nabbed an exclusive Q&A with Barack Obama*, we were asked by Geoff Livingston if we would welcome McCain's response to our questions in the same manner.  My initial gut reaction was, "Well, of course."  I like to think that I'm always ready to listen to rationale, reasonable people and their ideas.

But then I started to think about it a little more.

I'm impressed that John McCain's campaign reached out to bloggers, even non-political bloggers, to explain his plan for health insurance.  This is a great time to discuss health care because it's Uninsured Children's Week. 

MOMocrat Donna wrote about McCain's plan today, including all the problems she sees with his ideas. But there is a fundamental difference between the way John McCain sees health care benefit for people driven by market forces - and the way I see health care - something that should be a Right, regardless of socioeconomic status.

A $5000 tax credit sounds like a nice deal, right?  Except that families on the edge who don't currently have health insurance, usually don't have it because they don't have money left over at the end of the month after paying for basics like food, clothing and shelter.  Are they supposed to take out a $5000 loan until tax season comes around?

Oh & $5000?  For health care?  Are you kidding me?  Have you ever priced an individual policy for a family of 4?  Donna did.  Go read her post.  I can tell you right now that the quotes you'll get back won't account for the fact that your son has asthma and allergies and needs medication every month.  The insurance company will exclude that from coverage. Oh and that high blood pressure your husband has?  That, and any complication even remotely related to high blood pressure will be excluded too.  Is your wife still of child bearing age?  Routine pregnancy will be excluded.

Better start saving up for those prenatal and hospital bills now. You can bet your patootie it will come to more than $5,000.

I worked for a health insurance company before I went law school.  I analyzed claims for individual policies.  I know what they cost 10 years ago and I know they're a lot higher now.

Don't even get me started on the Non-profit GAP plan to cover those who are uninsurable.  How will it be implemented?  What if you aren't completely uninsurable but it would just cost far more than you could afford to insure your family?  Will there be income restrictions?  Will it be just another S-CHIP problem all over again, where children who really need care are shut out because their parents make too much money? 

But let's set the implementation aside for a moment. (I really went on an off topic rant there.) Let's talk about something I alluded to at the beginning of this post:

Is health care a right or a privilege?

I for one am so incredibly tired of hearing people around me and on the blogosphere stating blatantly that universal health care is a deal breaker for them.  They won't vote for any presidential candidate who supports it.  They always have a number of objections, most of which I've already addressed at length.

McCain even flat out said that he won't create another entitlement program or mandate. 

Let's talk about "entitlement." It can mean a government program guaranteeing benefits to a certain group of people, but the word can also be used in different ways.  I hear Republicans discussing with disdain the sense of "entitlement" that all "those people" using public assistance have.

I hear Republicans say that universal health care is something they could never support because they don't want people sponging off of them, don't want to have rationed care, don't want more bureaucracy, don't want, don't want, don't want.  But what they are really saying is "I want to keep my health care as comfortable and cushy as it is right now and screw all you other people."  And then they turn around and push a little old lady into oncoming traffic.  (OK, maybe I made the traffic part up.)

I know those are harsh words.  If they were addressed to you and they hurt, I'm sorry, but talk about a sense of entitlement!  Why are you entitled to have what so many others do not?  Do you pay for your own insurance?  (I'm guessing that your employer pays the lion's share.)  Did you choose your parents?  The color of your skin?  The experiences you would have as a child?  The genetic code that determined so much of your health? If you managed to do all of that, knock yourself out.  You can feel entitled. {/sarcasm} 

Are you getting it yet?

I have a really hard time being tolerant of a viewpoint that thinks having 47 million uninsured children in the U.S. is OK.  Herein lies the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats.  This is where we get all emotional and stop listening to one another.  As a Democrat, I believe that "We, the people" and our government, have a duty to step in and help those less fortunate, particularly children.  For me, that should be the role of government.

For a Republican?  Not so much. Republicans feel that they are entitled, whether it harms other citizens or not, to keep the comfy status quo.

I believe this Republican attitude of entitlement is almost as (if not just as) serious as racism or sexism.  If it were simply some form of cognitive dissonance, a refusal to see how others live, perhaps I could almost understand this attitude of exclusion.  But it isn't. This is a deliberate choice to see others suffering and simply not care; to feel "better" than others, more deserving, more, yes, entitled. It's Classism and it will be the divider of our country and the downfall of our society if it doesn't stop.

So, in response to Geoff's question, of course we're willing to listen to John McCain and we would welcome his responses to our questions.  But letting anyone go without health care simply isn't reasonable or rationale.  I'm not willing to listen to that.

When I'm not ranting about health care on MOMocrats (which happens frequently), I'm blathering on about my children and other random matters at Lawyer Mama.

*Hats off to MOMocrat Jaelithe for coming up with the idea for the Q&A and to MOMocrat Glennia for getting them into the right hands!

Comments

[Kyla]

Amen, LawyerMama. Amen.

On all my news articles this week, you can read the comment sections and see who is a R and who is a D based on their response. It is very interesting.

[Frank S.]

Very perceptive.
Right? Privilege?
Both and neither.

On one level, in the wild, there is no right to health care - you live or die by your wits. You can talk about the right to speak, or move about, or to associate (or not) with others, but health care is not on the horizon. You break your leg, or get bitten by a snake, you die.

On the other hand, once a society has grown up and exists, you can talk about the "right" to fair access to shared benefits - the grain silo, the water well, etc. And, if a medicine man or a hospital is available, there is the question of the right of access but also barter or payment for his/her specialized services. Some elements of "rights", to be sure, but the privileged will get more attention and fare better, just as they can buy more food and fare better.

What bothers me is the callous disdain with which the lack of access for 47 million Americans is taken - I fear the attitude for those on top is that this is one way to cull the herd. Regrettable, yes, that the old and young and weak are the easiest prey, but as we know from the wild, the herd overall benefits from predation. In that view, SCHIP is against nature - the weak should be culled so that there is more for the strong.

The fatal flaw in this attitude is that disease does not recognize borders of wealth and poverty, and once something like aerosol born Bird flu spreads rampantly in conditions of poverty, nobody anywhere will be safe. To some degree, we really are all in it together, but that's something that self appointed "top preditors" will hate to acknowledge.

[jaelithe]

I often wonder how many Republicans know that Benjamin Franklin, that famous Founding Father, self-made man, and writer of aphorisms about fiscal responsibility and self-reliance, started the first publicly funded public hospital in the United States. A hospital funded by donations and tax dollars, and open to every sick patient, regardless of their ability to pay for care.

That hospital was started in 1751, before the United States was the United States, even.

Franklin said, of the hospital, "I do not remember any of my political manoeuvres, the success of which gave me at the time more pleasure."

I wonder how it happened that we as a nation lost the sense-- a sense that once seemed so keen here in America-- that it is our moral responsibility to care for our neighbors when they cannot care for themselves.

[Nicole]

I am Canadian. I have full access to "basic medical care" (hospital, GP, walk-in clinics) whenever and where ever I want. For specialists, I get a referral from my family doctor.

Between my partner and myself, if we paid the full premiums every month (we're both lucky that my employer covers 75% of mine, and his employer covers 100% of his), we would pay $108 per month, or slightly less than $1300 per year. And this is high because of our income - if we made less, we would pay less. And regardless if you pay or not, you cannot be denied care.

And I read of people and families in the US that are paying that, and more, per month for less-than-adequate care with an organization that tells you which doctors and hospitals you can go to to get this less-than-adequate care? Mindboggling.

Don't get me wrong; I know the Canadian system isn't perfect. But the stuff that needs to get done, gets done, and then some. And that's why I thank my lucky stars, every day, for a man named Tommy Douglas. And I really hope that Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama can do the same for the US.

[PunditMom]

Classism? You hit that nail on the head, LM.

[Donna]

Brava, Lawyer Mama. Thank you for filling in the gaps in the post about the McCain plan -- and for putting it into context everyone can understand.

[debbie]

"I believe this Republican attitude of entitlement is almost as (if not just as) serious as racism or sexism."

Actually, Steph, I would suggest that it's a result of racism *and* sexism that people arrive at the sense of entitlement to begin with -- well, and as you stated immediately after, to classism, too.

It's all crap, though, because, as Jaelithe said, this country was initiated under the auspices of "we're all in this together." Not sure how we lost that, or when, but dude. We gotta get it back.

Rad post, babe. You rule.

[cynematic]

It's appalling that so many Americans have no health insurance. It's also appalling that some people go bankrupt after a health crisis that wipes them out financially--salt in the wound, and something I understand is unheard of among our "peer" developed-world nations.

SO wrong, and so in need of change.

[heather]

As a somewhat alienated Republican, I started reading Momocrats so that I could learn about issues from the blue perspective. Posts like Kyla's and posts that breakdown exactly what candidates are proposing and the impact on the country as a whole have gone a long way towards convincing me that maybe I should vote Democrat this year even though there's lots that I'm not sure I agree with.

Unfortunately, the sarcasm in this post makes me see red all over again. I didn't choose my parents, but my parents chose to sacrifice to give me those childhood experiences you sneer at, which didn't include yearly trips to Disney World but basic necessities like food and shoes. They chose to do without so they could help me go to college. I chose to work three jobs while in college to pay for my education. I chose a career field not based on what I love but with the intention of being able to support my family. Just because I have healthcare that's partially paid for by my employer doesn't mean it's cushy or that I'm trying to play keep away from uninsured children.

I'm sure this comment will make you nod your head and say I told you so, secure in your viewpoint that I don't understand what it's like to come from or be in a position where none of your choices are good. Yes, I've been blessed in many ways, including in that I've had choices at all.

Posts like this one, where Democrats lump all Republicans into some elite group that looks down on those less fortunate is exactly the same as Republicans assuming that all those poor people without health insurance are on welfare watching Jerry Springer all day who don't want to get a job.

Either way, it certainly isn't helping clarify the issues or swing any votes your way.

[debbie]

Heather, I really appreciate your comment, because I was raised in a similar fashion; my parents sacrificed so that their kids could succeed. (We got to go to Disneyland b/c it was a trip to see the grandparents, back when Disneyland didn't mean you had to take out a second mortgage on the house for the price of entry.)

My parents are Republicans. You know what made me switch teams, even though I grew up believing that being a Republican was the right thing to do? It was learning about the policies being created and established by the Republican *politicians* -- not the people, the citizens, supporting those politicians. When Stephanie refers to Republicans, she's referring (I can only assume, but knowing her fairly well, I think I'm assuming safely) to the ones who are running the show, not the ones who are simply trying to survive and get by and vote the issues (which the Republican pols usually fan voters' ire with around ballot-box time -- stuff that has nothing to do with how to run the country; stuff about who should or shouldn't get married to whom, or who should or shouldn't be having sex, stuff that has NADA to do with the basic tenets of how to operate a nation, and certainly, stuff that is deliberately distracting in order to keep the citizens too busy to consider just how they're being fleeced).

That said, I think there *are* some Republican-voting citizens, particularly those who were born into the highest social strata, the 1%ers, who believe just what Steph said; that they *are* entitled, and everyone smaller and less wealthy are not. Which is sick, but then, all you have to do is watch Paris Hilton and her ilk prance around at their six-digit costin' super-sweet-sixteen parties to know that's the mindset of the uber-wealthy.

Let's not let those people run the show anymore, is all Steph is saying. Let's give everyone the opportunity to have a shot at the dream, i.e., basic rights like health care, a good education, and a job when you get through learnin'. And maybe even the option to buy a house that you can actually *afford* because the lenders haven't gone batshit crazy and falsely inflated the prices to the point where the average jane can't get her family into anything but a crackerbox with an outhouse.

[debbie]

I forgot to say one thing; who are we kidding? -- the 1%ers don't vote. They don't have to. They PWN the politicians. They keep 'em in their back pockets and feed them cheese and cake niblets when the pols start whining.

(Well, that and they let 'em feel special by flying 'em around in their fancy jets on fancy int'l golf trips once in awhile. Just to keep 'em thinking they're in with the kewl krowd.)

[Lawyer Mama]

Well, Debbie said was I was trying to say very well!

And Debbie hit it right on. I didn't grow up rich, but I certainly never wanted for anything because my (Republican) parents worked hard. They worked hard to give me choices.

What angers me is a refusal of some people to see that not every one grows up or receives those same choices. And the "some people" I'm referring to are generally those who are privileged.

My constant referral to "Republicans" is in fact a direct response to the comments I've been hearing about "those people." You know all those welfare moms and dads who sit around and eat bon bons instead of working to feed and insure their children.

I think we can all agree that the stereotypes of both "Republicans" and "those people" is ridiculous. Just like all Democrats want to turn the U.S. into a socialist state.

But thank you for commenting, Heather, because it made me clarify what I was trying to say. I bet many people reading thought what you did & didn't comment. So, thank you.

If you'd like to read a much more rationale, non-emotionally driven post about why we should fix the health care system, I've written one here:
http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2008/02/the-voice-of-re.html

[heather]

Thanks for the talkback ladies. I've been reading for a while, and thanks to Jen even guest posted here so I know that you mostly welcome dissenting opinions and try to educate all who visit. =)

Of course you can post whatever and be passionate about it, but I guess maybe my takeaway is that as Momocrats becomes more visible you don't need to alienate the voters who are sincerely trying to sort out the issues, impacts, and come to terms with the fact that no matter who they vote for they aren't going to be 100% happy with their choice.

I read an oped piece today about how Rev Wright is going to single-handedly cause the Democrats to lose again in November, even with the political climate the way it is today.

The old adage holds true...honey, vinegar, flies and all that.

[Vicki]

You say that "we the people and our government have a duty to step in and help those less fortunate". The first part of your statement is correct. We as individual people do have a duty, a God-given duty to help others in need. Whether we're Republicans, Democrats, black, white, male, female, whatever, WE need to take care of our neighbors. We know best what they need.

Government, however, should not take the role of caretaker. If we're going to try to "fix" anything we need to go to the roots, not just apply band-aids. Universal health care is a band-aid.
*Getting people to believe in families again;
*getting people to care about their communities and the people in them again;
*getting people to realize they have an obligation to help out the less needy;
*getting those needy to look to their churches, synagogues, etc, and other local organizations for help;
*getting individuals to give (out of their own free will) their hard-earned money to the churches, synagogues, etc, and other local organizations;
*all of these things are root level fixes.

A band-aid will always be divisive. And calling me a racist or sexist or classist for wanting to solve the problem at a deeper level is pretty intollerant of you, I'd have to say, just because we want to fix things differently. Calling me uncaring because I want to go deeper doesn't make sense. I'd be more than happy to give my money to local people who need it, but don't tell me I'm forced to give my money to a beurocratic agency that will use most of it for overhead and red tape.

[jen]

Heather,
Great comments - I know I often let passion get in the way and can forget how it sounds to someone as you said, who is simply trying to sort things out. I suppose it's because I get so angry, angry at the suffering and what appears to be apathy. Angry at the pandering to my intellect and frustration at what appears to blatant greed. But that crosses all lines and isn't relegated to a single party - and most of all what we all need to remember is that we need to come together on these issues and stand up for what we believe.

Just like you, just like LawyerMama, just like we are all trying to do. And it shows how much pain we are all in, pain and frustration because there are no easy fixes and we are all looking to the best possible choice to lead the way.

[cynematic]

Vicki,
The "root level" fixes that you talk about:
*Getting people to believe in families again;
*getting people to care about their communities and the people in them again;
*getting people to realize they have an obligation to help out the less needy;
*getting those needy to look to their churches, synagogues, etc, and other local organizations for help;
*getting individuals to give (out of their own free will) their hard-earned money to the churches, synagogues, etc, and other local organizations;

Those are important. Thank goodness Americans are a generous people, especially with their neighbors. But if there are 47 million people in the U.S. without insurance, many of whom have at least one adult already employed in one job, how will churches and other organizations step in to fill that breach? 47 million people is a lot of people--1 in 6 of our overall population of 300 million, if I recall correctly. Not all of the uninsured people are on public assistance--in fact, just the opposite.

A lot of folks are employed AND underinsured. Or there's a big gap between what an employer's insurance will cover and what existing state CHIP programs will cover--that's the situation Kyla wrote about and Kyla's little girl, for example, is unlucky enough to fall in between the cracks. http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2008/04/the-speech.html

While church and community and other organizations could help for one emergency, could they really step in to assist with expensive procedures that Kyla's little girl, through no fault of her own, will need time after time as she grows and matures? That little girl was born with health needs that require attention to improve.

When we have a big, society-wide problem, we need policy-wide solutions to address them. That's where government comes in, in my opinion. When we empower government to act for us, we have phenomenal parks, and highways, and safe drinking water, etc, that we can all use and enjoy. We can ask our government to come up with a plan on our behalf that will help uninsured kids and their families. We all share the "burden" of paying for this, but we all benefit, you know?

I'd gladly give back some or even all of my "economic stimulus" check from Uncle Sam this summer if it could go into a general pot to get people without health insurance covered. What if we all did that, and it only cost us $5 out of our taxes? I'd call it money well spent.

What do you think, Vicki?

[Glennia]

I think these comments raise an interesting debate on who is responsible for our fellow man? Is it churches? neighbors? In Hurricane Katrina, those groups stepped up to fill the void when the government failed, but what about now? People still suffer because of that Hurricane over two years ago, live in substandard housing, and are displaced. For immediate needs, yes, local neighborhoods and others can be first-responders and should be, but longterm rebuilding of communities is going to take more than the people of the Gulf Coast can provide for their neighbors, which means government intervention. As a Californian, I would prefer my hard-earned tax dollars go to that end, rather than paying for a war I never wanted and never asked for and does not make me feel more safe in the world. Another example is medical research. Who pays for that? Research funded by the NIH and other agencies helps people all over the world, and yet has faced cut after cut under the current administration. So, should neighbors pay for that, too? Or only the wealthy few who have money to donate to private organizations with just as much administrative overhead as the government and direct funds to only those diseases that are popular with the public?

I think solutions will come on all levels, not just from government intervention, but from individual contributions and working within corporations, NGOs, faith-based organizations and community groups. I don't think Lawyermama is precluding that here, just stating that the term "entitlements" is misused.

[jen]

I could go on about this forever. As someone who's spent her life in non profit, I can attest we are doing the work of the community, for the community. the government pays us to do this work, because it is THEIR work and they contract with us to get it done.

Non profits can all disappear and the problems will continue and at the end of the day it IS the government's responsibility to address issues that affect constituents in their communities. How the goverment directs it's constituents, (churches, CBO's, etc) is of course part of their strategy, but at the end of the day every philanthropic do-gooder could disappear to a tropical island and then we'd have a hell of a mess.

Goverments need us, we need them. But it's all benefiting the constituents of our society.

[Lawyer Mama]

Vicki - I completely agree with a couple of your statements. Like this one:

"getting people to realize they have an obligation to help out the less needy"

Yes! Yes, that's exactly why it baffles me when people oppose government programs. Isn't that EXACTLY what social programs are???? The way I see it, when people realize they have this obligation, they'll stop opposing reforms. I don't see it as getting people to realize this INSTEAD of reforms.

If we want churches & communities doing these things, ok, let's go with that. How large of a community? What about poor communities? Are neighboring communities going to help them out or is everyone on their own?

What about those who don't belong to a church or a particular community or don't feel wedded to a particular community? We're a nation of nomads now. Perhaps because I'm an Air Force brat, I see this a bit more. It's unusual to live in one community your whole life.

Plus, I've been watching the John Adams series on HBO & your comment sort of brought back a conversation between Jefferson & Adams about the role of a government. Some saw it as a unifier - what brings us together & keeps us stable. Others see it as an interference, a power grab, to be carefully monitored and restricted at all times. It's funny how we're still having the same debate 230 years later.

Frequently government is the catalyst for NECESSARY social change. Think slavery, racial discrimination, sex discrimination, etc... But now, could you ever imagine going back to the way it once was? No. Because our society has changed for the better as a result of government action.

OK, I'll stop now. But great discussion, all!