Stop Calling It Obamacare

That’s the name we have all given to the admittedly flawed health care law, more officially known as the Affordable Care Act (not much better!). We don’t call Social Security “Roosecurity” or the Emancipation Proclamation “LincolnProc.” Why this insistence on giving important laws or orders people’s names, anyway? Like, “Megan’s Law.” It doesn’t add or detract from their legal effectiveness, or ineffectiveness, as the case may be.

In their failed attempt to get new legislation on the books, the Republicans in the House were undoubtedly motivated, at least in part, by a desire to erase a law that bore Obama’s name, to blot it out of history. But at what point does this issue stop being his or theirs, and become ours?

It’s true that President Obama put the first points on the board, to use a March Madness term, for the team seeking an inclusive national health care system. It’s not pretty, but it’s there, and the game is far from over. Let’s remember that he and other supporters tried to build this complicated and arcane law using the current private structure as much as possible. It will be hard to fix, but at least we have to try. There’s a lot of mourning or gloating about broken campaign promises today. So what else is new?

I am no policy wonk, but first we have to decide whether health care is a right or a privilege. I think in the end, it’s a mixture of both.

Another thing we have to work out is whether people should be required to buy health insurance. Well, in most cases, the law requires you to carry insurance before you get into a car and drive it on the highway. Sure, you have a choice, you can decide not to drive. But if you’re alive in this country, you have a body – a vehicle on the highway, so to speak – and it may be OK now, but you could wake up one day with a life-threatening illness. Then you get to go to the emergency room. In principle, you should do the rest of us a favor and just die – but that’s not how things work.

I am a senior now with no children. Why do I have to pay property tax to support public schools? Well, the theory is that an educated citizenry is something we all have an investment in. Whether our schools accomplish that goal is a separate issue, something we have to try to fix.

Some say we should leave heath care to the free market as much as possible. Then, we would be left to the tender mercies of the insurance industry. How do we think that’s going to work for us? Should we leave health care to the states to regulate? Should employers be required to offer health insurance at all? We have to find the answers. I think we can.

Our current president, as a CNN commentator pointed out, seemed to be acting like a fire chief watching a building burn down, preferring to let it burn because he didn’t start the fire, and the charred remains will make his arguments for him. But he likes to put his name on things. Perhaps that will move him to put it on something that really works, or at least works better, regardless of whose name was on it before.

Rush-ing for the Exit, Part 2

Where’s the needle on your “sincerity meter” today, following Rush Limbaugh’s apology to Sandra Fluke for calling her a “slut” and a “prostitute” on his show the other day? Fluke, of course, is the student who wants Georgetown University to cover birth control in its health plan (I guess I’ve dated myself here, in that meters don’t generally use needles anymore).

Clearly, we have no ability to enter Rush’s head or heart and measure his sincerity with much accuracy. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But were his statements made in the heat of passion? I would submit that with decades of experience as a radio personality, he has full control over his choice of words. He knew exactly what he was saying, and was using satire to make a point, which he frequently does; in this case, it blew up in his face.

Limbaugh admitted that his statement was beneath him – my sentiments exactly. I have not always agreed with him politically, but I always respected him as a broadcaster. I like both conservative and liberal hosts who do their jobs well, and many of those I hear and see on the air or on cable now are simply Rush wannabes. Sadly, even Rush is a Rush wannabe these days.

It’s been pointed out to me by my conservative friends that I’m not being fair, in that a long list of other hosts have used similar offensive language. Ed Schultz of MSNBC called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut” at one point. So what’s the difference? You may remember the old Saturday Night Live “Point-Counterpoint” spoof in which Dan Aykroyd assailed his opposite number with , “Jane, you ignorant slut!” Unpleasant as it is, “slut” in such cases is a general insult. Limbaugh’s use of the word on Ms. Fluke, however, was about her presumed sexual practices and moral conduct – real character assassination.

At least now, we’re going to return to the issues at hand, including: Should employers be forced to provide insurance for things they’re morally opposed to? Does insurance treat male and female sexual issues unequally, and are women being left out of the debate? Beyond that, do matters falling under the heading of sexual choice belong in health insurance plans at all? (As an aside, does a healthy sex life fall under the heading of “wellness” and require encouragement through insurance?) There’s plenty to talk about.

Oh, BTW, if birth control pills have all kinds of other health benefits for women, as Ms. Fluke points out, shouldn’t we be calling them something other than “birth control” pills?

And now, if you’ll permit me, a little dose of reality. Rush Limbaugh did Sandra Fluke a great big favor, which should satisfy any desire she may have for retaliation. She is now famous. She is also articulate, and if you’ll permit me again, not unattractive, and we will likely be seeing a lot of her during the presidential campaign. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if some day she has her own talk show or TV anchor slot. Nothing works quite like karma.

Enemy of the Good

OK, at first I supported health care reform. Then I said, scrap the bill and start over. I don't like some of the things that are in the bill. I don't like the fact that important stuff has been left out of it. I think the President handled the campaign badly. The method by which this thing is being pushed through Congress stinks. But are we ever going to deal with this issue, if not now?

I just think back to last year when my wife and I were trying to get individual insurance. We were turned down by the same company through which I'd been insured by my former employer because of a non-life-threatening physical condition. Lucky for us -- it's the same company that now wants to raise rates 39 percent. We did find somewhat affordable insurance with another company. But during the process, as we were questioned about our medical backgrounds, we were made to feel like we were trying to cover up a criminal past. Sure, there's freedom of choice: the insurance companies get to choose those who then have the privilege of paying their premiums. As I've said before, if you don't see something wrong with that picture, your eyesight's a lot worse than mine.

The basic business model of insurance seems to be founded on the avoidance of paying claims. If I'm wrong about this, please tell me how.

It upsets me that this bill doesn't effectively deal with tort reform. Because of it, individual doctors and hospital corporations are forced to load up on -- uh, insurance to protect themselves -- and who pays the premiums?

Now it may seem like a counter-intuitive argument, but the law requires you to carry at least minimal auto insurance coverage if you plan to operate a motor vehicle on a public street or highway, so what's wrong with requiring everyone to have health insurance? You may be 27 years old and think you're immortal -- but suppose you're hurt or stricken with some expensive illness out of the blue. Who pays for your care, if you can't? Doesn't enlarging the risk pool minimize the pain for everyone in the end? Isn't that what insurance should really be about?

As for the screwed-up system by which this bill has moved through Congress, well, it follows one of my universal principles: if there's a system available to you to get what you want, you're almost certainly going to use it -- regardless of whether someone else without access to that system thinks it's fair. But don't feel badly for them: they have access to another system unavailable to you, and they'll be working it.

So if the Democrats successfully work the system on this issue, chalk one up for them. If not, can we count on the Republicans to address health care, or health insurance reform, and are we as voters going to keep congressional feet to the fire on this? I should live so long.