|
with that dogmatic Michael Medved.
You got through some hopeful statements we all want to share-- that healthcare is a life & death issue like fire and police and national security-- there's nothing wrong with paying taxes for it.
But he was playing Mr. Free Market Dogma. And that was a pity. Lobbing the "what's wrong with making a profit?" at you, and not listening to your reply about accepting the profit motive in all kinds of areas, just not making money on moving the money between us and vital services we need from our medical professionals. I wonder how he would answer the question on whether medical care is a right or a privilege.
And yes please, I saw you do what I love Anthony Weiner for doing lately too-- saying, look, let's talk about a system we have that is working well-- Medicare. It's been up and running for over 40 years, it has a high patient satisfaction rate, and is a mixture of public and private systems. THen Medved dumps a load of Medicare-is-Broke scare stories, which you start to carefully rebut and he started to shovel another questionable statistic out before you were done, moving to a break, so good on ya for getting in the statement that "But the checks are still going out. Payments are being issued." It's working.
Those right wingers are so dogmatic about the Primacy of Profit and the Purity of the Profit Motive. They consider it taboo to question the profit motive at all. They are so rigid about that, even as they obtain benefits from many government agencies, like the FAA. They consider it tantamount to sin to question the profit motive. So I love it that you're a successful entrepreneur who has demonstrated his prowess with profit. You've made some money and can still think that not everything should be privatized and can explain why.
You conveyed the seriousness of the discussion well too. You demonstrated how many areas of our national priorities need to be discussed. You brought up the Me Society vs We Society concept. That seems to be changing across generations-- I see a lot of "We Society" sentiment among 20-somethings out here on the coast; I hope that carries across the country. I think the "We Society" thinkers were a large part of President Obama's voters.
You are really good at not over-reacting to the rhetorical tactics of the Right. You used each opportunity to share our progressive goals instead. That was great. You gave him the courtesy of replying seriously, even to that one where they lob a double-- toss an idea at you which you begin to answer then toss the next loaded question before you're done. You rolled with those tricks well.
Thanks for tolerating his rehashing of lies that had been asked and answered before. He had to bring up death panels. So you asked-- what is a death panel? Because you both know it's a ridiculous right wing meme. And in his reply, he said he liked the idea; he didn't want to pay for a 90-year old woman to get experimental chemotherapy drugs.
But you know, at least he tried, and presented a more serious discussion than the outlandish rumor-mongering of the town halls. But his points were still full of recisions and exclusions. Talking forcefully about how very expensive Medicare for All might be, but not acknowledging how expensive our current system is. Except when he made an offhand comment something like-- of course I don't want to see someone dying on the doorstep of the hospital. But otherwise not talking much about the 45 million uninsured.
And how unfair he was to seize the last bit of time to lob some questionable statistics about outcomes that glorify our system, without allowing you time to refute them with other data. Not allowing you time to ask him how he feels about other nations paying so much less than we do and covering everyone.
But thank goodness Medved was willing to bring you on to volley back at the standard right wing arguments. You did a great job in bringing the human and moral dimensions into the discussion. And brought it back to what kind of society We The People want for ourselves. Bravo!
|