HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Regarding the conservativ...

Sun Oct 18, 2015, 12:15 PM

Regarding the conservative position of keeping health care unaffordable . . . .

I think I finally figured out why some people in the USA are so hellbent against instituting universal health care in this country.

I mean, watching classmate after friend after relative have to put up gofundmes, fund raisers and bake sales to fund five-to-six-digit hospital/pharmaceutical bills for the crime of getting sick (this is on top of all the normal bills they have to deal with) isn't making any bells and whistles go off in anyone ELSE'S heads regarding our imminently sensible for-profit-only system that, like higher education, is slowly becoming the domain of the upper middle class and greater income brackets and firmly tethered to how gainfully employed someone is.

So let me drop the REAL reason why .. . . . .

I think it's because it's far more important to these people that citizens they deem economically, culturally or socially inferior to them DON'T get what every other industrialized nation considers a human right than it is EVERY American citizen HAVING Universal Health Care.

It's like an inherent NEED in America to feel like you're BETTER than someone else rather than have a nation that's truly serious about opening up opportunity to ALL people.

7 replies, 997 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply Regarding the conservative position of keeping health care unaffordable . . . . (Original post)
HughBeaumont Oct 2015 OP
jwirr Oct 2015 #1
HughBeaumont Oct 2015 #2
jwirr Oct 2015 #3
librechik Oct 2015 #4
Octafish Oct 2015 #5
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2015 #6
Facility Inspector Oct 2015 #7

Response to HughBeaumont (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2015, 01:09 PM

1. There has always been an bit of this in our overall cultural

ideals. The only time that people were ever really willing to accept real change was during a real crisis like the Great Depression when they themselves felt the threat of poverty.

I think a lot of it started with the founding of our country. America was a continent overflowing with resources and room. It was a place were we really could "pull ourselves up by our bootstraps" in the beginning. Where we could start all over from whatever failure encouraged our ancestors to come here from the country of our origin.

We enslaved people and put people on reservations while we grabbed everything else for ourselves and claimed that we did all by ourselves. And when the Natives and the slaves were free we said to them. Well you have your freedom now pull yourselves up. We never once recognized that the playing field was not level. The resources and the land were not easy to get anymore. We had a 100s of years head start.

Then we did not see what was really happening when the robber barons took over and became so successful. We were sold the bill of goods that they worked hard for everything they got. But they were no different than the corporations and banksters today. They used power over congress to consolidate their ownership society blocking most of us out. They used mineral rights laws to gain access to treasure that laid under the farmers land and exploited it for their own good. They used public domain laws to claim land for their railroads and other purposes. And we looked at how rich they were and told ourselves that "anyone can do it".

After the robber barons ran out of luck and ended us in the Great Depression many started to realize that maybe we couldn't always do it alone. So the New Deal was created to for once give each other a helping hand. Many still did not accept this idea of helping hands and they tried to end the New Deal from the beginning. Also the New Deal did not reach everyone. It did not reach into the ghetto or to the reservation. Poverty pretty much still ruled in those areas with little interruption. But most of us were doing a lot better so we just assumed that was their own fault.

Since then the only time that we tried to recognize our dependence on each other was the 60s era and LBJ's war on poverty. And that ended with a real backlash in the 1980s which we are still experiencing today. The conservatives convinced people that since poverty did not end totally with the war on poverty that it was never going to work and we were all to blame for our own fate. And here we are today facing politicians that follow trickle down economic theories and want to expand our greed to the entire globe.

What I ask myself is: How did Europe learn the lesson and we failed to understand it? Religion? Propaganda? Greed?What is wrong with us that we cannot learn such a simple message - we need each other?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #1)

Mon Oct 19, 2015, 07:32 AM

2. Good post.

I think it's a two-fold problem:

One - Sometime around the 40s-60s, before the slow-but-sure American conservative blueprint got underway, religious organizations gained tremendous power. Far from preaching goodness and light, this movement was backed by operatives in corporate America; just as the media now pummel us with "Free Enterprise", "Freedom","Rugged individualism", that message was first delivered to us from the pulpits.

Kruse's book investigates how the idea of America as a Christian nation was promoted in the 1930s and '40s when industrialists and business lobbies, chafing against the government regulations of the New Deal, recruited and funded conservative clergy to preach faith, freedom and free enterprise. He says this conflation of Christianity and capitalism moved to center stage in the '50s under Eisenhower's watch.

"According to the conventional narrative, the Soviet Union discovered the bomb and the United States rediscovered God," Kruse says. "In order to push back against the atheistic communism of the Soviet Union, Americans re-embraced a religious identity. That plays a small role here, but ... there's actually a longer arc. That Cold War consensus actually helps to paper over a couple decades of internal political struggles in the United States. If you look at the architects of this language ... the state power that they're worried most about is not the Soviet regime in Moscow, but rather the New Deal and Fair Deal administrations in Washington, D.C."


Two - Americans embraced this toxic narrative moreso than the Europeans did. Europe regards religion more for spiritual purposes, not as a means of governance. We've always been victim blamers and stressed competition over cooperation, which is why we're not as willing to help or give anyone any kind of leeway unless the wealthy or upper middle class get it first. Their media reports news. Ours delivers these same narratives learned from the old time religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HughBeaumont (Reply #2)

Mon Oct 19, 2015, 10:11 AM

3. Excellent point regarding religion. Especially the difference

between religion in Europe and here. What a lot of so called Christian religions do not seem to understand is that they are losing people because of their rw stands. The Pope is right about one thing - you cannot hate the poor and claim to be a Christian.

Back in Eisenhower's day many Christians did not even recognize the new directions the church was taking but today there is not excuse for ignorance. Too many churches openly preaching fear and hate. God comes in a distant 3rd and then only as a cheerleader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HughBeaumont (Original post)

Mon Oct 19, 2015, 10:16 AM

4. It's not enough for the rich to be rich. Everybody else must be poor and oppressed

it's part of the process for the psychopathic rich. No, it doesn't make any sense. But it is their one enduring social value.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HughBeaumont (Original post)

Mon Oct 19, 2015, 10:26 AM

5. JFK brought the subject up...

... in 1961. Of course, some nice group of professionals bankrolled Pruneface to call the President a SOCIALIST for proposing universal health care.



Operation COFFEECUP - How Reagan Worked to Stop Universal Health Coverage in 1961

In December 1961, the AMA pulled out all the stops to prevent President John F. Kennedy from proposing universal health coverage. For their effort, they recruited a TV-personality.

Write those letters now. Call your friends, and tell them to write them. If you don't, this program I promise you will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow. And behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country, until, one day . . . we will awake to find that we have so­cialism. And if you don't do this, and if I don't do it, one of these days, you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free.


Sounds familiar to Tea Party crapola of today. Ironic: Corporate McPravda avoids mentioning how one has-been B-movie actor took part in the organized opposition to Medicare in the early 1960s. Here's the story, thanks to Mr. Scott E. Starr:



The Campaign Against Medicare

Monday, March 22, 2010
By Scott E. Starr

EXCERPT...

In order to maintain the illusion of spontaneity, the AMA did not announce the existence of Operation Coffeecup or publicize the Reagan recording. The record was to be used, campaign organizers cautioned, only in the groups meeting under the controlled conditions of the informal coffees. Under no circumstances, recipients of the record were warned, were they to permit commercial broadcast of the recording.

Operation Coffeecup was kept deliberately low-key and internal to the AMA, its Woman’s Auxiliary, and the trusted friends and neighbors of the Auxiliary women. Reagan’s efforts against Medicare were revealed, however, in a scoop by Drew Pearson in his Washington Merry-Go-Round column of June 17th. Pearson titled his item on Reagan, “Star vs. JFK,” and he told his readers:

Ronald Reagan of Hollywood has pitted his mellifluous voice against President Kennedy in the battle for medical aid for the elderly. As a result it looks as if the old folks would lose out. He has caused such a deluge of mail to swamp Congress that Congressmen want to postpone action on the medical bill until 1962. What they don’t know, of course, is that Ron Reagan is behind the mail; also that the American Medical Association is paying for it.

Reagan is the handsome TV star for General Electric . . . Just how this background qualifies him as an expert on medical care for the elderly remains a mystery. Nevertheless, thanks to a deal with the AMA, and the acquiescence of General Electric, Ronald may be able to outinfluence the President of the United States with Congress.24
Reagan’s recorded remarks are quite extensive, and reveal a determined and in-depth attack on the principles of Medicare (and Social Security), going well beyond opposition to King-Anderson or any other particular piece of legislation.
My name is Ronald Reagan. I have been asked to talk on the several subjects that have to do with the problems of the day. . .

Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program. . . .

But at the moment I'd like to talk about another way because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent. One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. . . . Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We have an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.25


And what was this frightful threat that Reagan perceived as “imminent”?

. . . Congressman Forand introduced the Forand Bill. This was the idea that all people of Social Security age should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. Now, this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the de­pendents and those who are disabled, this would be young peo­ple if they are dependents of someone eligible for Social Security. . . .


It should be obvious that Reagan’s description of the Forand bill is a description of any Medicare-type program, not just a specific piece of legislation.26 The idea that people of “Social Security age should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance,” just is the idea of Medicare.

CONTINUED...

http://geotheology.blogspot.com /



The geotheology blog continues with details on Operation COFFEECUP. The American Medical Association bankrolled the "mellifluous voice" of Ol' Pruneface, a hypocritical guy who thought the crap on Death Valley Days was real.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HughBeaumont (Original post)

Mon Oct 19, 2015, 10:27 AM

6. Education too. A job title that looks good in a business card...

 

... is worth whatever debt required to obtain it.

Otherwise, how would anyone know how much better you are than the plumber?

That's why the pushback about free community college - it drives up the price of superiority - now a masters degree will be the price of admission to the cool kids club.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HughBeaumont (Original post)

Mon Oct 19, 2015, 10:33 AM

7. Are we talking about healthcare

 

or health insurance?

Two different things.

We have mandatory for profit health insurance already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread