Obamacare, Extreme religious conservatism, misconceptions and lies; or, “The Sad State of Modern American Politics”

So something has been bugging me lately and I just couldn’t hold it in anymore. I thought about using it as fodder for a couple of Facebook statuses, before realizing that there was no way I could completely express myself in such a limited space. So I brought it here. So without further ado, on with the blog.

I’m going to start off with the health care bill commonly referred to as Obamacare and officially known as The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and a handful of ridiculous misconceptions held by both democrats and republicans (to be more clear, both sides have completely differing misconceptions about the bill)
First off. I’m not a believer in the bill. But, I’m not a believer because I’ve done my research, and in my mind, the various portions of the bill can be divided into 3 categories.  First, there are portions of the bill which are pointless; their intention is to lower the cost of insurance, but in the end they’ll be offset by other portions of the bill, and insurance will either remain the same cost, or get even more expensive. Second, there are portions of the bill that I find to be over regulating a private industry, as well as the part we’re all familiar with, that I personally find to be a violation of constitutional rights (though not how most people assume) and Third, there are portions of the bill that, yes, I think are excellent ideas, that will help even the middle class get better health care.

Republicans, particularly Fox news, consistently refer to Obamacare as “socialized medicine” or some similar response. Democrats get offended, calling it justice, that those who need it will finally have coverage. Both groups are raving lunatics, and ridiculously incorrect. The public, for the most part, knows exactly squat about the bill, but rave against it, or for it, all the same. Most Fox News watching, borderline foaming at the mouth republicans, will simply say “They’re forcing everyone to have healthcare against our will, and they’re using our tax dollars to give healthcare away to the people too lazy to work for it” That’s awesome. Its an 1800+ page bill, with MANY separate  changes to health insurance, and that’s the best you can do? Two small parts, and you can’t even get those completely accurate? Then you’ve got the bleeding heart liberals. They get all teary eyed when you mention the bill, and they’ll tell you in almost poetic prose how the great Obama is saving us all by providing healthcare to those who need it most. Again, 1800 pages of bill, and that’s the only redeemable quality you can find in it? Research it, and don’t waggle your righteous finger at me again until you have done so.

Now, in a system of socialized medicine, the government uses public funds (i.e. taxes) to provide the public with health care, the quality of which varies widely from country to country, but is universally superior to third world countries, and generally (but not always) substandard in comparison to industrialized nations with non-socialized medicine.
Obamacare doesn’t make free healthcare available to everyone, only the poor, so it is not socialized medicine, so get your heads out of your asses and stop calling it that, you sound ignorant. However, it does force everyone to have medical insurance. When a government tells you that you have to do something, not for purposes of public or national safety but simply because they said so, that’s Fascism, not Socialism. Sorry liberals, but it’s true. The government has quite literally, no right, constitutionally or otherwise, to force me to purchase anything, no matter how big or small. At the very least, this is a states rights issue. Lets examine the Tenth Amendment. This amendment is last on the Bill of Rights, but it was actually a key piece in the establishment of the Constitution and the formation of our nation. Its text is very simple, and is easily one of the least open to interpretation of all Amendments. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. This is not rocket science, but I’ll super simplify it. If it’s not covered in the constitution, it’s up to the individual states. Period. Now go get me a copy of the constitution where health insurance is mentioned in some fashion. Don’t talk to me about health care (you won’t find that in there either though), because that’s not really what the bill is about, it’s really about insurance, and I’ll be damned if the federal government has any right to tell me I HAVE to buy it, or they’ll levy a punishment against me. Honestly, I don’t even believe the state has the right to go that far. Now, the bill does make allowances/exceptions for financial hardship, but I admit I’m not exactly sure what qualifies as a hardship, and what doesn’t. I do know the bill provides for subsidies to help pay for insurance for those who make up to 400% over the poverty level, and expands Medicaid coverage to all persons making less than 133% of the current poverty level (I happen to disagree with this portion of the bill, people in this bracket have little enough incentive to get off the teat and be a functional part of society, giving them free medical sure isn’t going to encourage that). The forced coverage applies to anyone who doesn’t qualify for Medicaid or Medicare, and who isn’t already on an employer plan of some sort. Well, these are usually people on the lower end of the middle class who make too much for Medicaid, and make too little to afford having insurance removed from their check, and it will be interesting to see whether or not those folks fall in the range that provides federal subsidies or not, and exactly how helpful those subsidies are.

Another portion of the bill, of which I am not a fan, is the requirement on insurance companies to spend a percentage of the premiums they receive on healthcare improvements. Now, I’m not exactly a fan of insurance companies, but they are a business, and their business is gambling for profit. Who is the government to tell them how that profit should be spent? Especially when several other portions of the bill will comsume a sizable portion of that profit. In the end, the insurance company raises the cost until their bottom line remains the same, then we all end up paying more, and the only people who benefit in the end are people getting their mooch on with the federal teat, and doctors and hospitals who receive and pocket the “improvement” money from the insurance companies, and people, if you think one dime of that money is actually going to improve healthcare, your naivety is beyond even my reach. Go find a large rock under which you can dwell. 

There are however, redeeming portions of this bill as well, regardless of what any hardline republican would have you believe. Evil traitorous bastard that I am, I’m going to cover them as well, in the name of fairness. First, co-pays and deductibles are eliminated for “preventative care” visits. That means when women make the yearly visit to the lady doc, it’s free. When guys over 30 get their annual finger in the bum, it’s free. This is a good thing, because right now, a staggering number of people don’t get their yearly checkups because they don’t want to pay the co-pay, or because they have a deductible which means they’ll be paying full visit price (ouch) unless they’ve already spent a pretty penny meeting that deductible. This benefits everyone. If you already go annually, it will save you money. If you don’t go, you can now go, and not be concerned about cost. If you still say this doesn’t benefit you, and refuse to go, then you’re just being a stubborn idiot who has been stomping your feet so long about Obamacare that you refuse to admit ANY of it could possibly be a good thing, even if it kills you, literally. Second, annual and lifetime coverage caps are banned. For most folks, they’ll never notice this part. For the rest though, it can be a lifesaver. If your wife comes down with cancer and spends 6 months in the hospital, your insurance company can no longer send you a letter that basically says “sorry, we paid your annual maximum of 25 thousand dollars, the hospital will be billing you for the remaining 75 thousand, have a nice day” For anyone who ends up with a long term care situation, this could be the difference between moving your family into a van, or keeping your house. The only downfall to this, is that you can be sure insurance companies will compensate, and rates will rise. But in this case, and the next, I’m willing to cede that, especially if it could be the determining factor of whether or not some kid ends up homeless because mommy or daddy got sick. If you still see this part of the bill as bad, you’re either, again, ridiculously stubborn, or coldhearted to the point of being a sociopath.

Finally, the pre-existing condition clause. This one can be argued from both sides of the fence, because in my opinion it’s a good idea they took a little too far. It basically states that insurance companies cannot deny someone based on pre-existing conditions, and even goes so far as to say two persons of the same age, from the same area, will pay the same premiums. I think this is a good idea, because too often, once a condition exists, people are forced to remain with the same job to keep their insurance because moving to a different job would result in a loss of medical coverage. However, I don’t like how broad it is. They excluded tobacco use, but many other choice based conditions are not excluded, and I don’t think someone who makes choices which negatively impact their health should pay the same rates as someone who makes choices which positively impact their health. And for the record, I’m even in that first group. I could go on and on and on about this bill, but I think I’ve made my point, the bill has it’s bad points, for sure. But it also has it’s good points. Which outweighs which is going to vary from depending on your viewpoint, but it’s ridiculous to see people with such polarized opinions about something which they most likely know very little about. Educate thyself... “Ignorance is not such a shame, as being unwilling to learn” – Benjamin Franklin - Best. Quote. Ever.

Now, on to the juicy stuffs. In the past several years, politics has suddenly become ultra polarizing. Two groups have emerged as frontrunners in this, Extreme Liberals, and Extreme Religious Conservatives. Both groups are stark raving mad, and both groups, contrary to what they’d have you believe, want to tell you how to live, what you can and can’t do in the privacy of your own home, and in general, shit all over the Constitution by deciding what rights you should have and shouldn’t have, based on their own personal beliefs, which they are more than willing to force on you, regardless of whether or not you share those beliefs. Yay extremists. I’m not going to talk about the extreme liberals at this time, because to be honest, I think they’re like a toothless pit bull at this point. Lots of bark, still a potential for danger if backed into a corner, but harmless if ignored, because quite frankly, their time has passed. They had Gore with Clinton, but Clintons moderacy (comparatively) kept him in constant check. They had Obama, and that just didn’t work out as planned. At least for the next two years (until mid term elections, where they can make a bigger difference in spread out clusters) they’ve been neutered.

Religious conservatives though… dangerous. Don’t bother hiding your women and children, but if you’ve got a gay uncle, get him under the floorboards and make sure he’s got a copy of the constitution for safe keeping. Current candidates, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul are such conservatives, but while Ron Paul seems to be more interested in doing the right thing for the country, Santorum seems focused on making the citizens of the country do the right thing (based on his own beliefs). And frankly, that scares the crap out of me. Rick Santorum, in my mind, is the kind of person that, given the opportunity to expand the extent of his power, you could easily end up comparing to Pope Urban II or Miguel de Morillo. Go ahead, look them up if you don’t know who they are, it will be worth your while. Now some might say that’s an awfully extreme view of Santorum, to which I can only reply, have you actually ever listened to this guy talk??

I don’t have a problem with religious conservatism in and of itself. But, as a Christian, I am a FIRM believer that it is wrong to force your beliefs on someone who chooses not to accept them. There is nothing wrong with an offer to share your beliefs. There is nothing wrong with an offer to teach someone your beliefs. But there is something inherently sinful (Irony much?) and frightening about someone who sees no problem forcing their beliefs on someone else, and, sans their conversion, forcing them to live by the rules of your religion anyways. This group of republican, Christian, religious conservatives has been building momentum over the past few years, using anti-muslim sentiment since 9/11 to fuel their expansion of power, and using a few central issues to solidify their base around. If you ask them, they’ll tell you how our country was founded on Christian religious beliefs, making the US out to be some sort of Christian holy land looked upon with favoring eyes by god himself, and the more we take god out of this country, the more of His ire we will bring down upon ourselves. They’ll tell you we need to change the laws, that our laws should reflect the bible (which is funny, because several laws they’ll suggest need changing aren’t really mentioned as black and white in the bible as they’d have you believe) They’ll tell you we need to make Christian holidays like Christmas and Easter nationally recognized religious holidays (one falls on a Sunday, and the other one we already all get the day off, how much more do you fracking want?). Without saying it outright, they’ll hint that we just trash the constitution and that snag about religion and government separation.

Newsflash, you’re wrong. This country was NOT founded on religious beliefs, and if you even open your mouth to start arguing, I’d highly suggest you pull your foot out of your face and read or at least skim, the Federalist Papers. Though not a specific booklet or collection, this term refers to papers and letters written by the founders of our country which cover a wide variety of their feelings on various topics, and which eventually found their way woven into our constitution and declaration of independence. If you read those two particular documents, you might be left with questions as to the why, or the how, or regarding specific intent. If you read the Federalist papers, though they hold no legal powers, those questions will almost all be answered.

You’ll also find that, seeing as how religious persecution by a theocratic ruled monarchy was cause for people to take refuge on this continent in the first place, one of the intents of the founders was to create a haven for basic human rights, without the interference of religious power. Not only was this country not founded on the basis of Christianity, it was founded with the hopes the religion wouldn’t interfere at all in its formation, and with the rights of its citizens moving forward. The word “God” is only mentioned loosely in the Declaration of Independence, and not even in a manner as to invoke any sort of religion specific images. God isn’t mentioned at all in the Constitution. It wasn’t even always on our money, and when it was originally written, the pledge of allegiance made no mention of God. For centuries, in this country like no other, the rights of the people granted by the Constitution have superseded any limitation placed on those rights by religious or other outside influences. Lately however, Christian conservatives have somehow taken to believe that this is the Christian States of America, and that their beliefs should forced upon everyone else through law, and rights of those individuals be damned. They, quite literally, do not care about the rights of individuals. They only care that everyone is living by the standards they set, by the rules that they demand, and Rick Santorum is the pinnacle, he is the penultimate warning, that this is what our future could be if we elect a religious zealot into office. Listen to him talk, really listen, and if he doesn’t scare you, just a little, then you’re probably one of them. The idea that one group of people should be allowed to force their beliefs on everyone is asinine, but anyone ridiculous enough to actually believe that it’s ok, isn’t likely to be persuaded differently by anything I write here. However, if you’re one of them, and you think your rights supersede the rights of, for example, another citizen who is of a different religion than you, or if you believe, mistakenly, that this country is a Christian country, founded  on Christian beliefs, I challenge you to speak up with sound reason and tell me why. And I’ll be more than happy to explain why you’re wrong in specific detail as it regards to whatever reason you make up for the sake of your argument. For Chists sake, literally, leave people be, do not judge, as the bible preaches, love thy neighbor unconditionally instead of persecuting him because he doesn’t believe what you believe. Christ preached love of one another over all things, not judgment and condemnation, so get your head out of the Old Testament. This isn’t supposed to be fire and brimstone, an eye for an eye. Christ changed that. It’s supposed to be turn the other cheek and love thy neighbor. But most religious conservatives gloss over that part when they’re busy trying to crucify whatever the current group de jour target for their ire might be.

In the end, looking at just these two issues, what we’ve got is polarization of the American populace on a political level. It wasn’t always this way. In the not too distant past, common sense was the rule, and stances on a handful of issues made the difference between candidates. But I believe the truth is that most Americans exist in a much more moderate “common sense” zone when they just stop and think about where they really stand on the issues, and which issues that really care about vs which ones they can really get worked up about. What most people desire, I believe, is to lead a comfortable life, to work, and provide for their family, and to do so with as little interference as possible from outside influences not of their own choosing, including government, religion, or just some crazy who hates video games (Jack Thompson, I’m talking to you here asshat). Live and let live. So, extremists, get over yourselves, you’re not special, you have no right to exact dominion over others for religious reasons or non; take this as a warning, push too far, and you’ll be pushed back, people don’t like being told what to do, and they have limits. There seems to be this vibe that an organized violent uprising is simply out of the question as a possibility. I happen to believe otherwise. It happens literally all the time, all over the world. It’s happened here before, and it can happen again. Oh well, went off on a tangent, hope you stuck with me and I hope you enjoyed my rambling.