On Healthcare, Iraq and the Democratic candidates
I understand that political activist bloggers are supposed to be all smart and stuff. I understand that oversimplifying complex issues might insult the intelligence of voters. But frankly, when I read Ezra Klein’s well-called-for critique of what Obama’s doing as regards healthcare, I can hear the sounds of thousands of eyes glazing over.
It’s well-meant and articulate. I agree that Obama’s plan is the weakest. But the reason critiques like this won’t persuade the uninsured to vote one way or another is because people struggling to get by often hear ‘mandatory’ and their first question isn’t “who’s plan is better?’ It’s ‘how can i get around the mandatory and still see a doctor when I’m sick?’
If you drive a car, there’s insurance minimums that have to be met. So for millions of poor people that means they’ll choose (a) not to own a car’ or (b) drive without insurance. Yet in the health care plan sweepstakes, there’s seemingly few options but to pay what may seem unaffordable. And many poor people will try to pay for their rent, utilities, food, personal hygiene, daycare and costs associated with working before anything else, no matter who’s mandating what. No matter how it’s spun, to them, any mandatory healthcare plan is just another tax. And a tax many don’t think they can afford.
Despite the political opposition, that’s why a Kucinich single-payer plan sounds like a big plus and mandatory plans do not, to so many people. None of the candidates have done a good job spelling out - in very simple terms - who will have to pay what.
What’s needed is a chart, spelling out what a minimum wage earner will pay and what they’ll get from the government to help them pay it. You make $12,000/yr, this is what it means. You make $18,000/yr, this is what it means. And so on.
If you make less than $15/hr, your income is $31,200/yr or less. I’d bet this is the group that makes up most of the 47 million uninsured Americans. It’s also the group least likely to vote because they don’t think most politicians understand how little such limited income can be stretched. That’s especially true for single people with no dependents.
If you make minimum wage, that’s $12,168/yr right now. If you deduct 15% for income taxes, the worker’s left with $10,343.
Few people are going to find rent and utilities combined at less than $700/mo. That’s $8400/yr. Food at $200/mo ($2400/yr) moves that total to $10,800, more than they’re earning. How do they get by? Sharing a dwelling with a roommate, which could be a spouse who can double that income. But even then, there’s just not a lot of stretch for those at such income levels.
I could cite other income levels and all of the other expenses common to any working person. And define how most medical insurance available remains out of reach for tens of millions of Americans. For example, the median household income in the US in 2006 was $48,000. That means about 150 million Americans are in households making less than $48,000. With 2 people working in such households, that means each is making less than $12/hr. So $48,000/yr would not be necessarily tough to get by on, unless you start factoring in regional variations in cost of living, dependent children, etc. And remember, too, the half of America under the median could have household income far less than 48 grand, less even than minimum wage if one’s unemployed, disabled or on welfare.
All these healthcare proposals are confusing unless they can be simplified to charts.
My point is, commercials like Obama’s will work because they make Clinton’s plan sound scary, even though they don’t spell out Obama’s plan in a comprehensible way.
Aside from that, I’ll add that Clinton’s plan is better but I’m still pretty much in the dark what it will precisely mean to me.
And yesterday, I heard Obama say he’d get the troops out of Iraq within 18 months of taking office. That’s the middle of 2010, making it a 7-plus year war. That’s unacceptable to me. Except that Hillary’s exit plan doesn’t offer a better timetable and McCain sounds like he’d annex Iraq forever.
It’s for reasons like these on the two biggest issues for me that I can’t endorse anyone. With Edwards out of the running, there’s simply no one left that’s offering a damn thing that I agree with or can fully understand. Gender and race are irrelevant to me. I don’t want a government that subsidizes the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people who never threatened my family, neighbors or country. I don’t want a healthcare plan so vague that I can’t even determine whether I can afford it.
Inspirational or not, precedent setting or not, if the candidates can’t come up with better plans or explain their plans well enough so I can do the math on my annual budget, then they can all go to hell, as far as I’m concerned.
So, yeah, I’ll let the rest of you choose our president. And if I can’t afford their plans, I guess I’ll have to break some laws to get by. When you’re poor, skipping insurance, working off-the-books or some other unsavory choice is pretty much what you’re stuck with.
Sure, some will say ‘get a degree’ or ‘work two jobs’ or ‘don’t have children you can’t afford’ or some similar admonishment. But life doesn’t always work as planned. I know many degreed people working for less than $12/hr. I know others who get stuck with an illness or accident or divorce or even some stupid mistake they made and they fall behind for years. Blaming the poor for their poverty cures nothing. And politicians raised in the comfort of middle class homes often don’t comprehend the myriad ways poverty can trap a person with a good mind and a good work ethic and honorable plans to advance themselves.
Speaking for myself, that’s why I don’t do celebrity worship. How can I relate to a ballplayer or actor or singer making millions when I work hard and scrape by? How can I relate to presidential campaigns that spend $100 million or more on three primaries? Oh I can root for someone a bit, but I don’t get upset if they don’t succeed because I know that 99% of them don’t give a shit about me or mine.
I felt John Edwards did stand up for folks like me. Two or three times in a lifetime, you can find someone like that, someone to be enthused about. But I suspect much of the political blogosphere doesn’t wrestle with poverty, so they can find their interests served by far more people than I can. And I don’t mean to diminish their academic debates on any issue, nor do I resent that they’re better off.
I’m just tyring to point out that for tens of millions of Americans, the effort to survive and to advance takes place beyond the world of politics because the only choices they can perceive are ‘which candidate will damage my family and community the least?’ Which means when we vote, we vote defensively. If we can even figure out what their gobbledy-gook means.
Recommended readings of other views I can get behind, related to these topics:
Echidne on John Edwards.
Jill of Brilliant at Breakfast, on Edwards and more.
Archcrone on the presidential race.
Paul Krugman, also on the Obama ad.
Steve Benen on the Obama mailer and the Clinton response.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:33 pm
I would agree with you about our choices, but for one issue. There will most likely be several Supreme Court vacancies during the next administration, and the thought of more repub appointments scares me. So I will vote for Barack or Hillary, if only for defensive reasons. I know the Jerry Garcia quote “voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil”, but sometimes it’s the best option.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Good point. I’ve said for the last year that our greatest goal is to keep JP Stevens alive till next December or the impact could outlast several Presidents.
February 1st, 2008 at 3:25 pm
yeah, the problem with all these “mandatory” health insurance plans is that i can see the health insurance lobbyists rubbing their hands greedily behind the curtains…i’m not high on forcing people to buy something they can’t afford and which, in a conscientious society, would be provided free.
February 1st, 2008 at 4:20 pm
The Political Analysis, the Democratic debate.
Both Democratic candidates are very good. Obama or Hillary has “the ability” to become President. Obama has a very interesting charisma that is very likable. Hillary, has fifteen years at least of Media slam to over come historically what many consider is likeable with a brilliant career. Hillary is a person in the public arena regardless of the media or political analyst, electable.
The one thing that is most striking in the negatives is Hillary will definitely change the direction of money flow in the country which is precisely what the Neo-Con doesn’t want. And for Bill to have a second chance with the hind sight and extraordinary time with experience as a previous president an ideal that is historically presented as an incredible opportunity that very well would change the dynamics of the Democratic movement.
Moreover, across the Board, most of the Media, takes the silly position to cry about the ideal that there is not considerably more money to be made within a Clinton economic approach than the current Neo-Con Bush/war approach. Which Clinton’s is very likely to be better. Also, it should be injected that a huge opportunity to redeem himself, Bill Clinton, for poor personal judgments made with his involvement with Lewinski. Here the Evangelist may vote for him to give him the chance, they are forgiving but would like responsible action on abortion and same sex marriage which is possible.
They both are great politicians to support, but Obama is so new I needed some way to get to know him. Because with that said Obama has little experience in the ways of power and money, were in a lot of ways the Clinton’s out rank Obama enormously. So, I bought Obama’s book called “Audacity of Hope” to get some ideal of what is in Obama’s head. There are a few surprises which are a disappointment that I will share with you, but read it for your self, likely you all my come away with a different point of view, but that’s life.
My view takes a trip into this ideal were Obama is on a rant along with media that supports Obama and his stand against the war in Iraq. There is a huge gap in the understanding and the thought process of real time experience here. Especially displayed by Huffington her descriptions and that other fellow, forgot his name, and actually who answered his own question. Making claim Hillary had no good reason to support her argument in her vote for the war.
Sheesh, indeed the whole intelligence system had been manipulated, massaged, tweaked, and cooked very well to confuse not only the electorate, but the representatives. How could anyone make the right choice at that time? And, here, the media constantly asking for an apology from Hillary because of her choice in voting for the resolution with the majority, all the while dismissing the ideal we know now the execution to get the job done was horrible, and still the media continues to talk about that ? Amazing.
The real high light is the fact that Obama did not officially act as a Senator till “after” all this voting was done on the Iraq War resolution. An extremely important place in time to dismiss. From my point of view this adds a great deal of irresponsibility to not only Obama but to those in the media that completely ignore the fact Obama did not have to participate in the stress, evaluation, person interactions, and real record in a recorded vote glaringly by the majority of the Senate.
Here, Obama did not have to buckle up in the Senate seat to make the historic vote and have it recorded for posterity. Obama can just express his opinion, make speeches, and reject the war in Iraq. Sorry but that’s easy for anyone to do. For those who see this in that penetrating way, like I do, it’s sad for a man to use his influence this way, especially as a presidential candidate. That’s scary.
February 1st, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Obama is the best compromise for me.
I don’t like his universal health care plan either, particularly for someone like me who a) has higher education b) substantial debt, most of it related to medical bills c) a chronic illness d) works two jobs and e) barely scrape by.
And I share your skepticism that “what the hell do any of these candidates care about you or me?” And although Edwards spoke about poverty in depth, he still was a millionaire, he exploited the system to make his fortune, he had been a former Vice Presidential candidate, and he never inspired most of us to care about his core issues.
His policies sounded well, kind of like LBJ, frankly and that was forty years ago.
Poverty IS important. But it’s not a sexy theme to sell these days when other issues take precedent.
*shrugs* That’s how it goes.
Guess I’ll vote defensively again.
February 1st, 2008 at 6:53 pm
“The real high light is the fact that Obama did not officially act as a Senator till “after” all this voting was done on the Iraq War resolution.”
zorro, I’m sorry, but have you been paying attention? Obama, in 2002, spoke out against the war. It’s his fault he wasn’t a US senator, or nobody listened to him? Bottom line, he knew what would happen if we invaded, and Hillary did not. He is the only one with any credibility against the Republicans, or in negotiating with the newly radicalized Middle East. I can see it now:
Hillary: “Let’s make this work. We all have an interest in peace.”
Syria: “Hey, didn’t you vote to kill tens of thousands of innocent Muslims?”
Hillary: “Well, if I knew then what I knew now…”
February 1st, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Zorro: the majority of Democrats in Congress voted ‘no’ because they weren’t convinced. Part of the problem, however, was calling chemical weapons WMDs when they’re not much worse than some of the bombs in our conventional arsenal and I think most folks thought he had old chemical stocks. So some chose the expedient path to cover their asses politically. Hillary, Kerry and Edwards among them.
Most folks understand Obama wasn’t in the US Senate when he spoke out publicly against the resolution. I don’t see any fact-blurring there. Even the media’s been pretty clear on that point. And I grant that Hillary’s better than Bush. Even a corpse is better than Bush. But I don’t trust a lot of the corporate money flowing to Hillary or Obama, so that argument really doesn’t wash.
Comrade Kevin: Unless you believe that anyone getting rich has exploited the system, I don’t see anything remotely unethical in Edwards’ profession. Had he been defending corporations, I’d agree with you but he was recouping damages to people caused by corporate negligence. I wish I had one dollar for every instance where a corporation had abused me, as that would buy me a couple dozen dinners.
And he may not have inspired enough of the nation to compete with the top two, but most in the netroots clearly were inspired. I think LBJ’s policies are as necessary today as they were forty years ago. But then, I’ve worked a lot with poor and homeless people. Anti-poverty wasn’t a winning political platform even back then, btw, because the majority hasn’t felt ‘poor’ since the Great Depression.
Edwards, alone, has worked hands-on in post-Katrina New Orleans. Like Carter, his commitment to the poor has been more than lip-service and I expect, will continue to be so.
The bottom line is the two raised comfortably don’t fully grasp what poverty really means. Edwards worked his way up from not having enough and fully understands that others with intelligence and drive aren’t going to succeed - because no formula provides a guarantee. So the poor will need a helping hand, whether they surpass it or not. That’s just how the world actually is.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:38 pm
John Edwards can say anything he wants. He’s out of work. Obama knows that right now, there is no way are the troops coming home. The only hope we have to pass something is timetables.
Now when he is elected, suddenly you don’t have the veto and a majority would mean you could pull out the troops.
I trust Obama to do the right thing. He was a thousand percent right on going in.
Edwards meanwhile thought going to Iraq was a great idea.
So I should trust Edwards judgement.
Thank for the laugh.
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:16 am
Ken, why are you arguing a moot point? Edwards is out of the race. You can trust anyone you want. I’m not advocating for anyone now and your laughter is not likely to change my mind. Or are you telling me Obama supporters enjoy insulting people?
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:17 am
[…] Our fearless leader, Kevin Hayden, and many others of our brothers and sisters supported John Edwards and understandably feel hopeless, betrayed, and completely disenchanted. […]