some thoughts on health care reform.

•when you consider that we already have socialized bookshelves (libraries), socialized learning places (public schools), socialized fire protection (your local fire department), socialized security forces (police departments), socialized letter and package delivery systems (the u.s. postal service), socialized road fixing (caltrans, at least here in california), socialized environmental monitoring (the e.p.a.), and socialized medicine for old people already (medicare)...socialized medicine for everybody just doesn't seem so unreasonable.

•i've read the gospels quite a few times and i still can't find the part where jesus says that the man found by the good samaritan shouldn't have been lazy enough to not have a job with good coverage and lucky enough not to have a carrier who dropped him when his treatment got expensive.

•if health insurance companies are already doing such a great job, why should competition from a public plan endanger them in any way?

•on this issue (and probably this issue alone) i am turning into a total laissez-faire economics cheerleader. move over thomas friedman, it's my turn to high five the invisible hand! natural competition in the market solves everything!

•if we were to get a public option and you didn't like it, you wouldn't have to use it. that's why the public option is called the public option, not the public mandatory.

•rep. alan grayson is a total badass and i would like to give him a hug and bake him a cake and probably give him a kiss, but only if he would like it and only on the cheek. WATCH THIS OMG HE IS SAYING THE THINGS I'M THINKING BUT HE IS ON TELEVISION:

Rep. Grayson on the Situation Room

•if you want to contact rep. alan grayson and tell him that he is the best ever, you can do so here.

•if you want to contact your congresspeople and ask them why the hell they can't be more like rep. alan grayson, you can do so here.

•stephen helmsley is a bad person (but he's not the only one. anyone who makes their fortune denying care to sick and injured people is, in fact, a bad person):

Greedy Insurance Companies—Unscrupulous United Healthcare CEO Stephen Hemsley

•it's taken me a long time to get around to writing about this. i don't feel like this post represents my best work, or my clearest or best organized thinking about health care reform. but i'm tired. tired, and furious and terrified. i just weathered another coverage-related fiasco, and i'm doing fine now (properly covered, going to get reimbursed for some stuff i needed but couldn't easily afford, etc) but it was a really scary couple of months. yes, months. with terrible nightmares. i'm publishing this in spite of its failure to meet my usual capricious standards because i think it's important, but i've really gotten to the point where, when i'm trying to talk to someone who is arguing against health care reform, all i hear these days is, "sarah, i don't actually care if you die."

a bill with a public option! and, i have more thoughts on health insurance reform.

harry reid has announced that he will introduce to the senate floor a version of the health insurance reform bill that includes a public option.

i think this is a great idea. if you agree, call/email/fax/write your senators and let them know you support it too.

i think the creation of a strong and affordable public option is really the only way to have meaningful health insurance reform. private insurance companies are not in the business to deliver high quality care; they want to make as much money as possible in order to meet their obligations to stockholders and to enrich top executives. that's their right, i think.

but at the same time, health insurance is not something most people can safely or comfortably do without. i understand that it seems unappealing to some folks to think about their tax dollars paying for someone else's care, but i believe that this sort of investment in one another is part of living in a civilized society. and sometimes it doesn't seem fair.

like we think of the things that we don't personally use, or haven't used for a long time. for example, i rarely drive but my taxes go toward massive maintenance projects for highway systems. i haven't taken advantage of a public school district in a decade, but my rent is increased to pay property taxes that go to OUSD. but when i do drive, i'm sure grateful for safe highways. and i definitely benefited from two public school districts at one time. am i paying for things in proportion to my use for them? definitely not. but there are also the fringe benefits associated with living in a place where the people around you have access to safe roads and the opportunity for a good education. i think we as a society are strengthened by social goods like education and infrastructure, and access to proper care.

there's also the matter of corporate profits. we may feel like we're saving money in taxes if there is no additional burden to pay for health care, but if we are paying hundreds or even thousands of dollars a month to private companies that may or may not allow us treatment that keeps us alive when we need it, is that better? what if we consider the part of that money goes to bonuses and advertising and massive executive salaries? (the CEO of united healthcare west makes $57,000 an hour. an HOUR.)

consider firefighting (another social good we all pay for that only some of us use.) right now, if a person's house catches on fire, they call 911 and the firefighters come, rescue the person's family, make sure the fire's out, and go. and those shiny trucks and skilled first responders aren't free—our tax dollars pay for them. and firefighting services are a public good. what if there were a bunch of different fire companies and you had to sign up with one, usually through work because it would be too expensive otherwise, and send them your premium each month...and then when it was time to call 911 you found that they weren't actually coming because they decided not to cover your fire?

i think a fine for not carrying insurance is totally insane, since many people who are uninsured would like to be but can't afford it. and i think private insurance companies should be allowed to continue to exist, but i do think that a government-run program for which everyone is eligible (like medicare, but for those under 65 too!) is the only viable solution.

and it's way past time. strong public option now.

can we all just agree that the howard jarvis taxpayers association is ridiculous?

first of all, they're "dedicated to protecting proposition 13," which was the 1978 ballot measure that has caused california schools and libraries (and, by extension, kids and families and the economy and literacy levels and quality of life) to suffer ever since. the prop 13 debate is an ugly one, but i'm prepared to defend the "prop 13 bad" side of things, yes.

ever since i started reading the arguments for and against propositions (many years before i started voting, yes yes, nerd! i know.) i noticed that those folks are always on the opposite side of issues as i am. which, yeah, pretty much makes them lame. but in the last election booklet, they really tipped their hand.

in their argument against proposition 81 (library bonds), they do the predictable thing, throwing out lots of numbers and statistics that, divorced from any sort of context, seem to clearly indicate that california politicians are out-of-control compulsive spenders ("it is never enough. did you realize that, prior to 1986, the state only owed $4 billion in bonds?" [THIS WAS BECAUSE, IN PRE-PROP 13 CALIFORNIA, WE HAD ENOUGH MONEY TO DO THINGS. ] "california and its taxpayers built our entire freeway system, the entire university system, our water system, and all of our grade and high schools without borrowing a dime...in 1988, the politicians told us our libraries were in trouble, and needed more money" [BECAUSE OF THE EFFECTS OF PROP 13, GUYS!])

they goes on to complain and complain about borrowing (which i'm not necessarily arguing in favor of), but then things get interesting. or appalling. "we spent $9 billion on illegal alien [sic] welfare last year, yet the state can't find one dime in money for libraries, and has to borrow money again? something is wrong. we are going to be told how important libraries are, and how we have to borrow the money again. these politicians want our children and our grandchildren to keep paying more and more, so they can keep giving more and more of their money to illegal aliens [sic] and self-indulgent bureaucrats...instead of letting them borrow the money, we need to tell them to take the money away from the illegals [sic], and give it to us in libraries."

so there you have it. it's the fault of "illegals [sic]" that california libraries are in trouble. without getting too far into the issue of whether or not undocumented immigrants represent a net gain or loss to california's economy (it's a net gain, just like in every other state), i think it's important to stop and realize the degree to which this organization relies on the tired practice of immigrant-blaming to advance its allegedly taxpayer-friendly agenda.

but seriously, i want people to stop and think logically about the tax situation. i'll freely concede that nobody likes paying taxes. but i am unendingly frustrated by the pathologically short-sighted view that lower taxes=better.

taxes, in addition to paying for massive bureaucracies and office supplies at dmv and the governator's salary, pay for fire stations and battered women's shelters and toilet paper at public schools and children's books at libraries.

countries with higher tax rates than the united states also have things like universal health care (that means that everybody can go to the doctor when they get sick, not just the people who have health insurance and/or the capacity to pay for it out of pocket.) they have programs that allow every single kid to go to the dentist twice a year (and i can tell you from experience that the result of kids not being able to go to the dentist is horrible. tooth decay can actually be fatal.) they have libraries that are accessible and inviting to everyone.

it is a tradeoff, like every economic decision. but i am sick of the argument that lower taxes will somehow improve my life. if i made a lot of money and if i had absolutely no concern for any sort of common good or for the living conditions of my neighbors, then maybe. but since neither of those states of affairs are likely, i'm tired of people trying to convince me that paying fewer taxes will make me happier.

and i know that immigrant-bashing is totally chic right now, but that doesn't mean that i like it any better.

my republican cousin's pick for president?

obama. come ON, democrats...get with the program!

you gave us a couple of imperfect candidates, and now we're down to two, and one of them attracts LIFELONG REPUBLICANS in addition to electrifying the grassroots like never before...and the other disgusts most of the right and many of her fellow democrats and is owned by the health"care" industry.

ps: california, i'm still mad at you for last tuesday. don't try to act like it's way in the past. get dean logan in shape, and maybe i can start to forgive you.

"it's connecticut for lieberman, not vice versa."

careful readers of c.w.a.j.a.?. will remember that joe lieberman is among my least favorite politicians in the history of ever. and, as you might also recall, i'm pretty impatient with the lack of affordable health care in this country. lieberman is one of the jackasses who's really holding things up. today, however, i watched a video that explains things pretty well:


joe lieberman sucks.

can we all just agree that cutting health care services to poor kids is really nothing to laugh about?

disgusting.