| Some days, just opening the paper is enough to break a sweat. Today's Messenger editorial page held attacks on the move to universal healthcare in Vermont by two usual suspects, Sen. Randy Brock (no link available) and Vermont Tiger's master of economic rationalizations, Art Woolf. On-message for the insurance industry, both invoke the classic defense against radical change to a failed system: change is scary.
Yes, boys, it is scary. No, we don't know just yet exactly what the final plan will mean in terms of either savings or funding; but we do know that if we don't gird ourselves to wade in and just do the work, the "system" as it stands is completely unsustainable and will ruin us all. And what's this bugaboo that Randy Brock resorts to as his closing zinger?
"We have only to look to our north and see where Single Payer will likely take us. Higher taxes, long waits for care, shabby facilities, a loss of doctors, and a bloated bureaucracy. It's not a pretty picture."
Maybe not from where you sit, Mr. Brock, comfortably wrapped in gold-plated private health insurance that will avail you of the best care that money will buy here in the land of commoditized healthcare. But from where most people sit on the pavement, what Canada has looks like a very pretty picture indeed! And maybe you haven't heard about their lower infant mortality rate, greater longevity and greater quotient of happiness.
Do taxes make you squeamish, Mr. Brock? Maybe the Canadians are happier than us because they have come to some sort of acceptance of taxes as part of the social contract that ensures a decent quality of life for everyone no matter how unlucky they might become. Is that so hard to understand? As far as long waits for care are concerned, do you have any idea how long forever is? That's how long the working poor have to wait for preventive care in the U.S.
If Mr. Brock's and Mr. Woolf's ostrich imitations weren't discouraging enough, there was an editorial reproduced from the Rutland Herald (also, no link available.) The Herald piece started innocently enough, enjoying the left-handed compliment paid to Vermont by the New York Times in commenting about our lack of a balanced budget amendment in the state constitution. As you may recall, the Times called the state a "fiscal goody two-shoes," and the Herald was optimistic that this might help our bond-rating (I'm not kidding.)
This leads into some hand-ringing on the part of the Herald over what might happen to that supposed bond-rating boost if we dipped into the rainy day fund to ease some of the pain and dysfunction in social services. Okay... I might not agree with the premise, but it was a positive enough observation. Then the Herald, IMHO, went clean off the rails, pretty much dismissing the genuine pleas for help from that sector as a lot of overblown nonsense:
"During the budget debate, many advocates for those needing assistance went to the Legislature to argue for their clients. That's their job. But if one were to catalogue all hardships they predicted collectively, one would expect to see the poor starving in the streets. That's simply not going to happen."
Callous much lately?
It must be nice to move in social circles that belie the tremendous evidence of genuine need that are all around us. It must be nice to have the luxury of financial security that allows you to turn up your nose at the care that is available to all Canadians, regardless of their ability to pay.
Peel me a grape, Beulah! |
