by Wayne Lusvardi
The Public Editor of the Pasadena Star News, Larry Wilson, has a column out today on the contentious health care issue calling all those who disagree with Obama-Pelosi-Care "wingnuts." ("As health care battles, avoid the "wingnuts").http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/ci_13063274
But when it comes to the health care issue just who are the "wingnuts?"
Let's take public unions first. California government unions want to give up their current gold-plated health insurance benefits for Obamacare which may be cheaper but will, in all likelihood, end up being second class. One of the provisions of HR 3200 - The House of Representatives Health Care Bill - is to allow for states to devise their own "Single-Payer" health care plans. Single payer means only the government pays for health care. The upcoming gubernatorial election in California is likely to result in a Democratic governor to join the all-Democrat legislature. As soon as that happens single-payer health care will likely be a shoe-in for California. That will drive all the most competent doctors out of the system. Instead they will serve the rich on an all-cash payment system without insurance. Would we call union leaders and members "wingnuts" for embracing inferior Single-Payer health care over their own best interests?
Or how about the many older people, many who are conservatives, who are opposing Obamacare? By forcing all people into a single-payer health insurance system, the uninsured, whom are mostly young, will be paying for the health care of the old. But many of the old think there is some sort of "lock box" out there they have put their tax money into over the years which will guarantee sufficient funds for medical care in their old age. But there is no lock box and thus no money for their medical care unless it comes from the young and the currently uninsured. I guess older people are nut cases too. They haven’t a clue as to their own best interests.
Then there are the young who mostly voted for Obama and probably are in favor of Obamacare. Typically, the young are the most healthy and don't feel they need much medical insurance. Especially the young self employed often feel they can take the risk of going without medical insurance until later in life. But once they are forced into Obamacare they will be highly taxed to pay for the medical care of mainly the elderly. I guess we could also call the young who voted for Obama and favor Obamacare, against their own best interests, "wingnuts."
Or how about gay people? Surely most of them favored Obama in the last Presidential election and now favor Obamacare. But under Obamacare it won't be just older people who will be denied hip replacement surgeries, cataract surgeries, angiograms and angioplasties for clogged arteries, and chemotherapy and tumor removal surgeries that don't cure cancer. It will also be gays who have AIDS who will be denied access to very expensive drugs. There isn't a politician in the country who will say to the elderly you can't have a hip surgery or chemotherapy but gays can have AIDS drugs. You see, I guess it's OK to be an irrational wingnut, as long as you're a gay wingnut. What did George Orwell say? "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal."
Newspaper editor Larry Wilson has been previously adamant in pointing at the rightness of his historical advocacy of school busing in Pasadena dating back to the 1970's. At that time, those who opposed school busing were the "bigots" and "wingnuts" of their day. But they were right. School busing accomplished nothing for improving schools. What resulted instead from school busing was a two-tiered educational system - one inferior system for the poor and working class and another superior system for the wealthy and elites. Needless to say this un-American like system was not the intended result. But that's what we got. It also created "white flight" and the origins of our affordable housing problems. Busing was later abandoned but now the school system remains stratified. Something like this is about to happen to our health care system all in the name of progress. Unlike Canada, U.S. courts will not prohibit those who can self pay or self insure from opting out of the health care Public Option.
Those "nutters" are the only ones with enough historical perspective to see the health care public option for what it is about to become. Eric Hoffer in his book The True Believer wrote: “a mature person trusts his eyes more than his ears. Irrationality often manifests itself in upholding the word against the evidence of the eyes.” Forget about what is being touted as reform in health care. Look at what preceded it - the dysfunctional school systems and legislatures.
Let’s come up with a definition of a “wingnut.” A “wingnut” is someone or some group or class of people who are out of political power. Being perceived as rational depends on whether you are in political power, at least under a Democratic-controlled government. One man’s “wingnut” or fanatic is another man’s rational problem solver.
There are both religious and rational fanatics. Those who embrace single-payer health care reform tend toward the rational fanatical types. The fanatic’s temptation is to see everyone who disagrees with them as the enemy, as “nut cases,” “wingnuts,” as deviants.
The French philosopher Rene Girard has pointed out that when societies face crises instead of finding a rational solution they often find a scapegoat (witness “Bush derangement syndrome”). After eliminating or invalidating the scapegoat it is felt that the problem is now solved, even though it isn’t. And scapegoaters are incapable of seeing that they are scapegoating.
Fanatics rarely have a sense of humor when it comes to such contentious issues as our future health care system. A joke can often debunk and thus transcend all the participants on such divisive issues. Take the following joke adapted from the many Soviet-era jokes:
What is it when there’s health care for those able to afford insurance (the insured) but not for the uninsured?
Answer: the Bukharinite rightist deviation of Communism.
What is it when there’s health care for the uninsured but not for the insured?
Answer: The Trotskyite leftist deviation of Communism.
What is it when there’s the fear of no health care for the insured or the uninsured?
Answer: The correct party line.
And what is it when there’s health care for the insured and the uninsured?
Answer: The horrors of capitalism.
Comments