ken zirkel » Politics

The health care debate

Ken Zirkel — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:46:35 +0000

There’s lots of craziness and lies being perpetrated by the right wing in this health care debate. But what’s got me amazed, more than anything, is how the mainstream media and Republican legislators (both backed by health care industry sponsorship) have convinced so many people that other countries which have nationalized health care systems (ie, single-payer plans) have terrible systems and that the people in these countries hate the system and get bad health care.

The fact is, most industrial nations have better health care than we do, it costs less for them, it’s more convenient, and the people like it. I thought this argument was well addressed in Michael Moore’s film “Sicko”, but unfortunately people don’t trust the messenger, and so they overlook his very good message.

Here are some links on the subject I’ve been collecting just in the past few weeks:

Who was voted the Greatest Canadian of all time in a national poll? Tommy Douglas, the man who created the Canadian health care system.
Stephen Hawking defends the British system; says without it, he would not be alive.
Gordon Brown defends the British system
Ten Questions to ask about our health care system: Ok, they are statements phrased as questions
Is Public Healthcare in the UK as bad as the US right wing says? from the Guardian

Let’s face it, health care is a problem that has been solved, to a great extent anyway, by other countries than the US. So the real question is, why does the right wing think the USA cannot achhieve what these other countries have? Do they think our government is less competent than the governments of the UK and Canada and France? Do they think our government is more corrupt?

Yes we can!

Ken Zirkel — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:52:31 +0000

This reminds me so much of 1992. That one, was the first time Democrats had won the White House since I was of voting age. This one is sweeter because the victory is more transparent — no third party candidates (ie, Perot), Obama got a clear majority, not a plurality. And because Obama may have won North Carolina (where I was living in 92, and which Clinton lost). And because Obama is such a positive candidate, he inspires so many people.

The only dark spot seems to be that Franken is losing the Minnesota Senate race by something like 600 votes, out of 2.7 million votes cast. Although I guess it’s not over yet.

I voted

Ken Zirkel — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:21:02 +0000

I don’t understand why so many places went for touch screens. Paper ballots have proven themselves as reliable mainstays in much of New England. They can be machine counted, hand counted, and recounted as necessary. They are pretty intuitive and easy to use.

Going after Gore

Ken Zirkel — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:02:51 +0000

Wow, seven years too late, somebody in the mainstream media has written an article about how the media misreported Al Gore’s presidential candidacy in 2000.

If you’re interested, the incomparable Daily Howler has been on this story for years.

Barack Obama

Ken Zirkel — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 01:02:26 +0000

Saw, heard and photographed the Senator from Illinions during a local appearance a couple weeks ago. He had had a long day, was running late, and was visibly exhasted. But he still gave a good off-the-cuff speech before a supportive local audience. I guess he saw the talk as an opportunity to prepare for his book tour, as every answer to audience questions began, “I talk about that in my book ….”

Do I see him as presidential material? Well, I do prefer my candidates to come from the Governor’s mansion, not the Senate, as I discussed earlier. And I like my candidates to be a little older and more experienced than Obama (in the middle of one undistinguished term). I do think that Clinton’s major flaw was that he was still young enough to want to enjoy the sexual perks of the office, and too inexperienced to stonewall his way out of it (why did it not occur to him to say “my sex life is none of your business”). On the other hand, he has significant experience living in other countries (although the Right pillories him for it), which I think would be a great strength in this global economy. And, as I said before, I think by and large any Democrat would be light years ahead of what we have now, and in fact would likely do a competent job at the very least.

Mark Warner

Ken Zirkel — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:25:41 +0000

So Mark Warner has chosen not to run for the presidency in 2008. I have to say, I’m disappointed. The last two Democratic Presidents have been Southern governors, and I don’t think that’s a co-incidence. In fact, every President since 1976 has been a governor. I think the governorship is better preparation for the presidency than, say, the Senate. I remember reading George F. Will once that the Senate tends to make people long-winded and overly concerned with procedure and process, and thus makes people, well, boring. On the other hand, the governor’s mansion is more analagous to the Presidency, being a chief executive leadership position.

I don’t actually know much about Warner’s policies, but I don’t think it matters quite that much. Democrats tend to lead less by force of personality and more by consensus, by checking facts, consulting experts, and trying to make the best decision. Republicans like Reagan and Bush basically set an ideology and tone, and everybody knows where they stand on everything because individual policy decisions are not debated or discussed, they are decided according to a rigid ideological stance. Voters seem to prefer that, for some reason.

Anyhow, I bet the outcome would be more or less the same as if any Democrat were elected. Certain people — Bruce Babbitt, Bill Bradley, Wesley Clark, Dick Gephardt, maybe — would probably get important positions in the executive branch, and they would be given a reasonable amount of latitude in deciding policy for their agencies. The EPA, HUD, FEMA, etc would be run by people with some degree of experience in these areas, not by political hacks. I don’t expect it would be a golden age, by any means, but we’d have a functioning, respectable government again.

It does seem to be a pretty sad sign when that’s the best I’m hoping for, though.