When non-Americans hear about the UHC debate they assume that what the U.S. is debating is whether or not to have a universal health care system of the sort that exists in other countries.
But that is not at all what the current debate is. That idea is dead. The current debate is over the addition of an extremely complex system that will offer partial coverage to a fraction of the population, in addition to existing, complicated systems that offer coverage to other parts of the population. It takes a long time and a great deal of explanation to understand just what Obamacare does, and longer still to really determine what its effects will be. It is a case of the possibly-good-but-maybe-not being the enemy of the perfect; there are legitimate objections to Obamacare, and some people legitimately feel it is to their detriment.
Marriage equality is simple to understand, and has no real impact on anyone not involved in one. Bill O’Reilly, amazingly, put it best; its opponents have nothing to say about it except to thump the Bible. Once half the population is over the “ick” factor, there’s little to be said about it.
It is easier to get agreement for things that are
Simple, instead of complex,
Free, instead of expensive, and
Abstract, instead of impactful.
Marriage equality is simple, free, and has no impact on people who aren’t in one. Obamacare is complex, expensive, and has an effect on people.
Which side do you take in both of these debates? What do you suggest that people who agree with you should do to stop allowing politics to complicate things?
Hear ye, hear ye: The most important political issues in America all deal with who gets what. All other issues – gay marriage, school prayer, abortion, gun control – while not unimportant in their own right, are comparatively distractions from what matters.
I’m going to go in a different direction. I don’t think it is the cost, I think it is change. Gay marriage is a lot less disruptive than UHC would be. Gay marriage is not going to change the number of gay couples living together, it is not going to change, immediately, gay PDA. Since a lot of states and a lot of companies already give benefits to domestic partners, it won’t even change that. Homophobe churches won’t have to marry gay couples, no problem there.
No matter what a good idea you think UHC is (and I think it’s a great idea) it will be somewhat more disruptive, especially to industry.
It is much easier to approve of something which will help someone you know and hurt you not at all.
I think the US should have both legalized gay marriage and universal health care.
For those who agree with me, should consider actively taking the politics out of their arguments for UHC. It’s about fundamental humanity really and the benefits of a healthy society, not about which politician supports it or not. And yes, I say that knowing the political requirements for implementation but the debate should be a human one.
Every time anybody suggested national healthcare, is any (and, yes, ANY) form, the GOP and AMA immediately screamed “Socialized Medicine!” “Socialized Medicine = Communism”.
Do we need to review how Communism was regarded in the US in the 50’s and 60’s?
At this point, it is a Pavlovian response among many - the fact that we have gotten so far that we can use the code words “single payer” is almost as amazing to me as my living to see a black President. A black President who managed to get a first step at health insurance (not actual health care) enacted.
This is farther than I expected to live to see.
Stonewall served notice that the game had changed; 1971 or 1972 the AMA removed homosexuality as a disease (yes, really).
Sorry to say it, but AIDS was what gave rise to gay marriage.
While AIDS = Gay, people started realizing that "my god - he’s one of those! Who knew Rock Hudson? (well, I did, but only because I read Herb Caen). So now that everybody has KNOWINGLY met at least 100 gays/lesbians, it’s no big deal outside a few religious nutjobs.
It’s a “feel good” thing that costs next to nothing, and will stop some truly obscene cases currently happening.*
families who disowned their kid 30 years ago, cut them out of will, made then unwelcome in their lives are showing up and claiming bodies, thereby shutting out the deceased’s mate and loved ones.
United Airlines has a major maintenance facility at SFO (which is in SF). When SF proposed a rule that health insurance benefits had to be extended to all spouses, they actually threatened to move this several-hundred-million-dollar replacement cost facility to another location.
It was enacted; they stayed put.
Yep. They screamed it when Social Security was implemented back in the 1930s. When Medicare was proposed in the 1960s, Ronald Reagan himself said that he was happy with Social Security but Medicare was a step too far and would bring about the collapse of America. Now we get people screaming for the government to get its hands off their Medicare, but Obamacare is Marxist communist fascism gone mad.
Excuse me if I don’t run panicking into the streets.
The weird thing is the average American is getting it up the arse a lot more from the healthcare industry than … never mind: Worst health care system. Ever.
Add my vote to this one. Regardless of how the over all costs (translate: greater good) would shake out, a small number of interests would stand to lose large amounts of money with UHC. The only thing in the way of gay marriage is prejudice, which is not one of the 7 deadly sins. But greed squarely is.
Much more could be said, but this sums it up as succinctly as I could imagine.
A lot of money and effort is directed at convincing the public that the current system is the best possible system for providing them the best possible health care. I believe what the current healthcare-for-profit system actually does better than any alternatives is funnel money to the weathiest participants in that system.
A lot of people fear the care they would receive under UHC, but I believe a lot of people are ignorant and easily swayed by aggressive PR. I readily acknowledge the extent to which my opinions are influenced by PR. I’m surprised at how many folk seem to believe that their strongly held opinions are solely the result of their conscience and personal examination.
Who has the biggest stake in opposing gay marriages? Conservative christians? Anyone else? While they are good at making the news, they are increasingly becoming less influential in national politics.
There’s a segment of the homeschooling movement opposed to publicly funded education. Just because they don’t get a lot of press doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
When we talk about universal health care we are basically talking about reforming the largest industy in America. I lot of people stand to lose a lot of money if the industry is changed. They will do anything to keep the money flowing. That’s just free enterprise.
The debate over gay marriage is a human rights debate. UHC is about money and that is where the long arm of business becomes interested.
What worries me about Obamacare are these “gay panels” I keep hearing about that will require you to marry someone of the same sex if you’re single at retirement age.
Nevertheless, remember the contextual one-two punch at the outset of the whole Obamacare debate:
Most people – 85 percent? – reported that they were satisfied with their current insurance; and
The reassuring pitch therefore was – as it had to be – that, hey, if you like your current plan, you can keep it.
So say you consider treating gay couples like straight ones; it’s just fairness instead of discrimination, you say, or libertarian ain’t-nobody’s-business-ism, or whatever; as famously gets repeated in argument after argument, the plain truth is that, no, them getting hitched doesn’t really threaten your marriage. If, as it were, you’re satisfied with what you already have, then you can keep it. You’re still exactly as married as ever; contentment can continue.
But if you’re told that your satisfying health-insurance plan may be scrapped, you may well say whoa, hey, stop; don’t take it away; I love that stuff!
