Illustrating Absurdity

13 04 2010
Illustrating Absurdity

Chicken crossing by Peter Griffin

The health care law is back in the forefront, and illustrated in shades of gray. It is beyond absurd that a bill that was supposed to solve so-called problems with our nation’s health care seems to be creating a multitude of new ones with each turn of the 2,400 pages!

The first illustration is actually quite funny.  The New York Times posits: Baffled by Health Plan? So are some Lawmakers.  Apparently Congress and staffers could be removed from their “Cadillac” plans and dumped into the gubmint option with the rest of the unwashed masses.  The killer quote:

“The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?”

Apparently not.

David A. Nichols, a leading expert on the Eisenhower presidency, writes in the Los Angeles Times that Obama is channeling his inner “Ike” by pushing through a flawed health care bill, the same way Eisenhower pushed through a Civil Rights bill.  A pull quote:

“Covering the millions without health insurance is the civil rights issue of our time. And Obama walked a path analogous to the one Ike walked on civil rights in 1957.”

Let me just say, that there is nothing that chaps my hide more than blithe comparisons of any major piece of legislation to the Civil Rights era and the laws enacted as a result of it. The Civil Rights era was unique and nothing can be compared to it. We can learn from its tactics and tenets, but this supposed health care crisis is microcosmic when set against the systemic disenfranchisement of a segment of the American population based on the color of their skin.  That era, and all that was rightfully fought and won during the struggle is frozen in amber and crystallized in time.  And using these ridiculous comparisons only serve to diminish its transformative power and weight.

And finally, we have a young Hollywood, Florida mother who was dropped from Medicaid before she could receive a life-saving bone-marrow transplant.  According to her, she was solicited by the Social Security Administration to receive disability benefits for her three-year old  son, and like any good mother would, chose to take it.   Medicare determined that she now made too much money, and dropped her from the rolls.

The story first aired last Friday, on Fort Lauderdale’s local CBS channel, and of course, it went viral.  The update as of today:

“Since the CBS4 News report first aired last Friday, several lawmakers jumped in. Late Monday afternoon Jackson Memorial Hospital confirmed Smith will have her surgery later this week after all.”

Mom with Cancer gets Insurance help for transplant.

In the comments section, one person wrote, “Welcome to Obamacare”.

So, this raises a question:

If there are no “death panels” in this new law, how do you explain this occurrence?  Being sentenced to die because thanks to the government dole, you now earn too much, and therefore are not eligible for coverage.  And this is income from the same government that afforded you the Medicare in the first place.  Not to mention, this isn’t grandma–this is a young woman–how arbitrary is that?

No, no disconnected panel here making decisions on life or death.

Stepping off the soapbox now.



%d bloggers like this: