Baucus isn’t the only pol serving up tea leaves. I was thoroughly confused by a comment from Rep. Pete Stark of California, who chairs a crucial health subcommittee. A few weeks ago, when the House voted to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, the San Francisco Chronicle said that “Stark predicted the reform legislation would be enacted by September, despite up-front costs that could be as high as $150 billion a year.” But wait a minute. Didn’t Stark say in December that reform might have to wait until early 2010? At that time, he said lawmakers had too many pressing priorities on the economy and other smaller-scale health issues to move quickly on a large health bill in 2009—at least that’s what The Hill and other outlets reported.
There you have it—Baucus (and Stark) every which way, offering hope or despair to friend and foe of health reform. It sure would be great if the media could remind the health politicos what they have previously said and clue us in when the signals change.
What these influent people, members of the "American aristocracy" mean by “There’s more of an entrepreneurial sense [in the United States]" is that in the United States, the new aristocracy of the wealthy people (the "entrepreneurs", you know the Wall Street people and their friends in Congress) are the only one that should have right to good health care, like any other things like private jets, mansions, army of security guards, private schools and colleges for their kids, etc...
Basically, the justification of social inequalities is that the money is the only recognication of your value as a human being. If you are rich, it means you are an "entrepreneur" and you deserve to get the best (as the European aristocrats in the 18e Century). If you are a working class member, you are like the European peasant who has no right at all, except to serve his land lord and the King). Of course, the European people woke up one day and just discarded their aristocrats and kings. It is interesting to note that when people in Europe were freeing themselve from their masters through revolutions and reforms, people in America were creating their own masters who would rule over their live for the next centuries (robber barons, politicians in Washington, etc.).
For the American health care system, it is what I call the "Titanic syndrom": the life jackets and life boats are only for the first class passengers, and they are the only people to have the right to be saved, when the rest of the passengers are locked in their "reserve" having only the right to die.
#1 Posted by Micusa, CJR on Sun 8 Feb 2009 at 06:21 PM
This man sounds like Nero the Pervert .A man has to be Perverted in his mind and very sick in-deed to know people are crying and sad and sick , and then walk away from the poor souls dying.
#2 Posted by Eliza Dood, CJR on Sun 8 Feb 2009 at 08:22 PM
The Senator's attitude suggests unbecoming arrogance and closed mindedness. As single payer is a proven PRAGMATIC (the current, and appropriate, operative word) system throughout the world, just perhaps it should at least be allowed "on the table" for discussion. Uniquely American entrepreneurial for profit health care is a miserable and immoral mess. HR676 is a reasonable beginning.
#3 Posted by Joseph Eusterman MD, MS Med, CJR on Thu 12 Feb 2009 at 07:36 PM