In a USA today column, Nancy Pelosi called opponents of Obama’s health insurance reform plan “un-American.” She writes:
“These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.”
Pelosi, of course, is referring to the protesters at the Democrats’ health reform town halls. It seems like she’s fine with protesters whose political views match her own – according to Fox News she once said about anti-war protesters:
“It’s always exciting. This is democracy in action. I’m energized by it, frankly.”
I’ve noticed a lot of health-protester-bashing in the past few days. A letter to the editor in today’s Boston Globe said the following:
“As a teacher of 31 years, I have learned how to quickly recognize a bully, and how not to be intimidated by one. We have fought wars in order to stop the bullies of the world. Now they are in our own backyard. We are not just talking about healthcare, but the very foundation of our free society.”
Right. So the Democrats, who control the presidency and both houses of Congress, are the victims, and people who dare to voice unpopular views are the bullies? Funny, I thought bullies were people who gang up on others and force them into doing things they don’t want to do. To me, that sounds an awful lot like what the Democrats are doing. The protesters are bravely standing up to bullies. To label them as bullies themselves is preposterous.
Another preposterous thing that this letter writer says is that the Democrats’ plan is “a healthcare system that would benefit everyone.” The Democrats want to raise taxes to pay for more health services for the poor. This clearly doesn’t benefit the people who will be paying those taxes. The Democrats also want an individual mandate – in other words, everyone will be required to have health insurance. This certainly doesn’t benefit people who would rather pay for their health procedures individually than buy insurance.
Earlier, the Globe ran an article entitled “Foes’ decibels replace debate on healthcare.” I object to the implication that loudly protesting the Democrats’ plan prevents debate. I get the point that the protests could be a little more civil, but yelling is a lot closer to debate than blindly accepting everything Obama says.
Additionally, Globe columnist Derrick Z. Jackson recently bashed Republicans for not agreeing to everything Obama says. He writes…
“The Senate voted 60 to 37 to extend the (cash for clunkers) program, with 33 Republicans voting against it. This was worse than the 31 Republicans who voted against Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. And, of course, the Republicans have declared war against meaningful healthcare reform, despite the fact that the nation has 46 million uninsured people, one of the greatest travesties in the developed world.”
First of all, I’m not sure why voting against something is always “worse” than voting for it. Why doesn’t Jackson use the word “better”? Second, I wouldn’t call Obama’s health reform plan “meaningful.” None of the laws under consideration in Congress would significantly change anything for the better about the health system (except requiring insurance companies to cover anyone who applies; that’s a slight improvement). Health insurance will remain ridiculously expensive, complex, and confusing, only there will be more taxes to provide it to poor people, and everyone will be forced to buy it. Third, Jackson thinks that people being uninsured is “one of the greatest travesties in the developed world”? Not having insurance isn’t a travesty – it’s a good thing! People should be free to choose whether they would rather buy insurance or pay for each health service individually. I can think of many far greater travesties – the Durham-Humphrey Amendment, the fact that you can’t get a gun without going through tons of paperwork and fees, machines that show the naked bodies of everyone at airports, and the progressive income tax system are just as few examples. And then Jackson concludes by saying…
“In 2008, the nation said Nay to the party of Nay. It is rapidly coming time for Obama to do the same.”
I don’t really see why he criticizes the GOP for saying no to things. When the issue in question is whether or not to raise taxes and force everyone to buy insurance, I think “nay” is a pretty good response. Angry protests are also a pretty good response. What does Jackson want the Republicans to do, automatically agree with everything the Democrats do? Wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of having two parties?
