Tuesday's Elections Don't Change the Fierce Urgency of Now

Uh, no. The Fierce Urgency of Now does not obliviate the importance of Getting It Right. The public is well within its rights to call for a pause or even an outright cessation in the nationalization of health care.

Congress is, or at least was, poised to pass a massively complicated and radical overhaul of health care. Even if one accepts the premise that massive government intervention in health care is needed as a matter of justice, the details of how this is to be carried out need to be considered carefully and in a 1990 page bill there are an awful lot of details.

Impatience is not a virtue. Never has been. Never will be. The rhetorical stamping of feet and shrieks of "NOW! NOW! NOW!" ought to be met with a renewed commitment to sober deliberation and caution.

The health care system isn't perfect but it works tolerably well for the vast majority of Americans. Treatment is available to pretty much anyone who really needs it. Take your time Congress. This CAN wait.

LV

Uh, no. The Fierce Urgency of Now does not obliviate the importance of Getting It Right. The public is well within its rights to call for a pause or even an outright cessation in the nationalization of health care.

Puh-leeze! Something that King also said, and knew from experience: "Not now" almost always means "Never." And let's be truthful: Many of the opponents of Obama's health want NO reform whatsoever for merely political reasons -- that the poor, who do not support them, won't get their votes.

Rev. King was a great man who was brilliantly insightful about some very important issues, for which he deserves our eternal gratitude. He was not an oracle, nor was he infallible. He once said that something needed to be done quickly, and he was right about that particular issue at that particular time. That does not mean everything you want must be done all at once.

LV

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, PATIENCE, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. AGAINST SUCH THINGS THERE IS NO LAW." Galatians 5:22 (emphasis added)

You completely miss King's point. The same thing that was said about civil rights back then is being said about health-care insurance reform today for the very same reasons -- that is, who actually benefits from it and at whose expense. Remember that conservative activists shot down health-care insurance reform 15 years ago -- "Hillarycare," as it was known then -- because it was "politically damaging," in the words of William Kristol.

You completely miss King's point. The same thing that was said about civil rights back then is being said about health-care insurance reform today for the very same reasons -- that is, who actually benefits from it and at whose expense. Remember that conservative activists shot down health-care insurance reform 15 years ago -- "Hillarycare," as it was known then -- because it was "politically damaging," in the words of William Kristol.

Whatever you say...

LV

To this point you've said nothing that even begins to address my concerns about the bill, and I have no idea what I could say that would pull you out of your mindset.

Correct -- it's not the specifics of the bill that are the issue; it's that there's a bill at all. As one of the slogans in AA goes, "First things first."

Anyway, as long as you miss King's context -- which IME most conservatives do -- you're absolutely right. To be honest, your posts on this thread sound as though we need to wait for a "more convenient time and place" but which, given history, some know full well will never come; sometimes justice has to be confrontational -- even forced down people's throats -- to be recognized as such. Basically, I see "more deliberation" as just another delay (read: denial) tactic, and that's also Dixon's point.

Let me point out a difference between King's context and this: The work which couldn't wait, AFAIK, was that of shifting public opinion. After that, it was democratic process of getting the laws passed.

On the other hand, you're trying to skip the step of shifting public opinion and just pass the laws undemocratically. Overthrowing the tyranny of individuals with the tyranny of government is a horrible idea.

On the other hand, you're trying to skip the step of shifting public opinion and just pass the laws undemocratically. Overthrowing the tyranny of individuals with the tyranny of government is a horrible idea.

Nonsense -- that's just the excuse I'm talking about especially in this country, where private interests hold more political power than anywhere else in the world. Besides, anti-segregation legislation certainly was not "majority opinion" when it was passed, especially in the South (in fact, that caused the Democrats in that part of the country to embrace the Republican Party).

That said, truth is not always, or generally, determined by majority rule.

Here's another difference between the two legislations: Civil rights are easily drawn from the Constitution, even according to the framers. I don't think universal healthcare ever crossed their minds.

That said, truth is not always, or generally, determined by majority rule.

No, but the process of seeking truth in a democratic society is a democratic one.

Like the proponents of universal healthcare?

Not an issue. The opponents of civil rights couldn't have cared less about the Constitution.

And the cry of patience is "wait til there is another crisis to distract people from this one."

Seems to me that if there was anything truly problematical in the bill, the opponents would be yelling about it from the rooftops. So far all they have come up with are some bogus nonsensical rantings about death panels.

One of the main differences between private and government programs is accountability. If the bill contains serious deficiencies, the people can hold the government accountable and demand change. Not so with private programs. The need for reform has been demonstrated by our representatives and other investigators showing the deficiencies of the current private health insurance system. Yet the private insurors show no willlingness to change, since they make so much money the way things are. Instead of reform, we see them spending millions of dollars a day throwing roadblocks in the path of reform.

Like the proponents of universal healthcare?

Beside the point.

Like the proponents of universal healthcare?

Beside the point.

I'd rather have no bill at all than one that completely violates the checks and balances set in our system. I don't care what the bill is about, this is not only reckless in the present but a horrible precedent.

Meanwhile, I'm getting at the underbelly of the Republican machine. From my discussions with you on here, I've gained a lot of perspective from you and would love to take the relationship off-site if you're willing. I certainly don't agree with you on everything, but at least you're sane and articulate - and a good counterweight to my biases.

I'd rather have no bill at all than one that completely violates the checks
and balances set in our system.

By that standard, there was a lot of legislation that shouldn't have gotten
through.

Anyway, my blog is www.uncommonsensecommentary.blogspot.com. I can be reached
through that.

I'd rather have no bill at all than one that completely violates the checks and balances set in our system. I don't care what the bill is about, this is not only reckless in the present but a horrible precedent.

Meanwhile, I'm getting at the underbelly of the Republican machine. From my discussions with you on here, I've gained a lot of perspective from you and would love to take the relationship off-site if you're willing. I certainly don't agree with you on everything, but at least you're sane and articulate - and a good counterweight to my biases.

Forgive me. I've gone back and looked at William Kristol really said at the time. In truth, he didn't say what I wrote. In his infamous memo to GOP leaders he first made the case that the Clinton health care reform was bad public policy. Then he argued that if the Democrats ensured the government began to provide health care for everyone it would only make the American people more indebted to the government for their livelihood. Kristol wrote, "it will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests." Republicans see this as a negative. I disagree. The more power people give to the government, the more opportunity Democrats will have to distribute this power to the people who vote for them. You see, we'll win. You'll lose. It's about justice.

Forgive me. I've gone back and looked at William Kristol really said at the time. In truth, he didn't say what I wrote. In his infamous memo to GOP leaders he first made the case that the Clinton health care reform was bad public policy. Then he argued that if the Democrats ensured the government began to provide health care for everyone it would only make the American people more indebted to the government for their livelihood. Kristol wrote, "it will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests." Republicans see this as a negative. I disagree. The more power people give to the government, the more opportunity Democrats will have to distribute this power to the people who vote for them. You see, we'll win. You'll lose. It's about justice.

Moderator -- my handle is being hijacked again. Please remove the false user from this blog.

I am just a wee bit curious as to why my comment above was removed, and by whom.

LV