Obama hasn’t sold us on health care, opponents might

Politics

Obama hasn’t sold us on health care, opponents might

By: Keli Goff (Add to your loop)
Tue, 08/25/2009 - 12:42

0
Votes

comment | share it | print it

People protest at town hall meetings.

As someone who supports the president but is not sure that I support his health care plan, I was beginning to think that I was a political version of Will Smith in I Am Legend: the only one of my kind left.

If you turn on the television you would be convinced that there are two camps on this issue: those who hate the president, want to see him fail and are using health care as a means to his end, and those who are part of some liberal cult, blindly following Michael Moore, Nancy Pelosi and President Obama down a blackhole of socialism that will kill grandma in something called a “death panel.”

But the truth is not so black and white—at least it hasn’t been until recently.

Before you ask, yes, I realize that the current system is broken and that nearly 50 million Americans are uninsured is a travesty, but I also realize that a new system doesn’t automatically mean a better one.

The polls indicate that other voters have similar reservations. Though in June a clear majority of Americans supported government sponsored health care of some kind, a CNN poll also found that only one in five believed their own families would be better off under the proposed health care reform, a number that has now dwindled to three in ten.

But then something funny happened. Just as it seemed that the president would need to pull a rabbit out of a hat to magically convince those of us who need convincing, some of health care reform’s most vocal critics appeared on stage and practically said, “Abracadabra.”

In the last few weeks the number of instances of extremism, racism and intolerance linked to health care opponents has been downright scary. Congressman David Scott’s office was targeted with “n-word” laden hate mail and a swastika. There was the instance of a Rosa Parks poster being ripped up—to applause—and threats against the first family.

I thought perhaps as an African-American I was somehow extra sensitive to these moments then I heard from three friends—all of them white. One called to say he had been undecided on health care but was “decided on not wanting to agree with crazies showing up at meetings threatening the president.” Another e-mailed to say that the behavior exhibited at various town hall meetings made him think that perhaps he had been “naïve” about the level of racism in this country and another shared that her mother—who had also been undecided—said “I’m starting to think that a lot of these people screaming about health care at town halls just don’t like having a black president.”

Mom said a mouthful.

So maybe, just maybe, the president does have a shot at converting us non-believers.

He should just let his opponents do all of the talking for him.

Keli Goff is a political blogger for TheLoop21.com. She is the author of the critically acclaimed book Party Crashing: How the Hip-Hop Generation Declared Political Independence (Basic Books, March 2008). She is a regular contributor to The Huffington Post and previously served as an editorial contributor to RushmoreDrive.com. Keli can be seen regularly on national news programs including Anderson Cooper 360, The CBS Early Show, Lou Dobbs and BET.

Tags:

Is Obama compromising too much in the health care bill?

Most Active Discussion on this Topic

Obama's Afghan decision

by - Tue, 12/01/2009 - 14:48

COMMENTS

by Logic Connection (not verified)

Keli:

Here's the opinion of another white person. I do not support H.R. 3200 and it has nothing to do with the race of our President. It's easy to be dismissive of critics of health care reform by describing them as "crazies" or racist, but I believe it is politically naive. As someone who has worked on Hillary Clinton's campaign, would you attempt to make the same argument that the vast opposition to "HillaryCare" in the early nineties was based on racism?

I agree with you that the current system could use some changes, but a government run plan is not the answer.

Posted Wed, 08/26/2009 - 04:17

by Anonymous (not verified)

"only one in five believed their own families would be better off under the proposed health care reform, a number that has now dwindled to three in ten."

ummm, 1 in 5 dwindled to 3 in 10? Can you do math? 1 in 5 translates to 2 in 10 (because 1/5 is twenty percent and 20% of 10 is 2), meaning the number actually increased, not decreased. Don't automatically assume that just because the denominator of the fraction (in this case 5 and 10) has increased that the fraction is smaller. In fact, 3 in 10 would translate into 1 and a half (1.5) in 5.

Ironically, you have to solve a math problem to post here. Well done.

Posted Wed, 08/26/2009 - 05:40

by Anonymous (not verified)

The opponents to the 'public option', a federally run health insurance plan, concerned about governmental intrusion in their health care must be opposed to Medicare, a federally run health insurance plan. If not opposed to Medicare, then these opponents must be satisfied with the Medicare health plan and would support expanding Medicare coverage to the under 65 population. Perhaps these opponents would agree that the 2nd most vulnerable segment of our population are pregnant women and children and that Medicare should be amended to cover that group (Pedi-Care?) to assure a physically and mentally health future workforce that relieves parents struggling with mortgage payments, job, and retirement savings of the worries about their pregnancies and children's health care. Certainly the adult children of seniors using Medicare appreciate the immense financial and emotional burden Medicare has lifted from the shoulders of seniors and their adult children. Certainly seniors and their adult children appreciate the seniors having longer life spans and greater quality of life without the fear of financial ruin from health problems. It seems clear that the real, bird-in-the-hand savings from overpayments to the Medicare Advantage plans will provide the funds to support a portion of the uninsured under Pedi-Care with employer/employee contributions for the 'Pedi-Care' kicking in when unemployment falls to 5%. Such an approach with leave the current health insurance industry virtually intact and time to correct the many problems that, unsolved, could lead to universal Medicare (which is, after all, an American solution). If, however, the opponents cannot support Pedi-Care, it seems reasonable that they will next attack the original single payer, government run Medicare program to be consistent with their opposition of Pedi-Care or the public option.

Posted Thu, 09/24/2009 - 13:48

TheLoop21.com

Politics