美國政治創新低
【邱鴻安】國會正在放暑假，民主黨議員從華府回到全國各地，試圖在各自的選區舉行里民大會(town hall meetings)，解釋和推銷國會仍在討論的健保改革；但是這些里民大會卻遭到民眾的包圍和抗議，他們不但指責和辱罵議員，並且阻止會議進行。這股突然而來的抗議浪潮，已使美國政治跌至新低點。
這股抗議浪潮已受到不少輿論指責，例如諾貝爾經濟獎得主克魯曼就直呼抗議者為暴民(mob)；華盛頓郵報經濟專欄作者皮爾史丹(Steven Pearlstein)更稱抗議者為「政治恐怖分子」(political terrorists)。
必須指出的是，抗議者看來都是一般民眾，他們看來也真的很憤怒。問題的關鍵是：他們為什麼會那麼憤怒？他們到底憤怒些什麼？ 從他們的抗議標語和口號可以看出端倪。不少抗議標語和口號都針對健改建議的公營健保計畫─例如，指責公營健保計畫為「社會主義」、「政府接管健保」、以及「政府要控制我們」等。這些標語和口號充份反映出，抗議者擔心健改會令他們失去現有的健保。
說這股抗議浪潮是美國政治的新低，當然不是說，不同勢力不可以進行政治角力。美國著名歷史學家史萊辛格(Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.)說過，美國歷史向來是保守和自由兩種勢力的輪替，因此當其中一種勢力掌權執政時，另一種勢力自會極力反撲，在這種情況下，政治角力當然是少不了的。
說這股抗議浪潮令美國政治跌至新低點，那是因為：反對健改的勢力利用民眾的恐懼心理(恐懼失去健保、恐懼「社會主義」)，以錯誤訊息去誤導民眾，並且煽動他們前往抗議，以達到正當角力達不到的目的。
例如民眾擔心失去健保，反對健改的勢力於是極力說政府要接管健保，讓民眾以為政府從不介入健保。但是這卻不是事實，因為美國政府一直以來都介入健保，而且介入得極深。為什麼呢？現在65歲以上的美國人所參加的健保計畫「Medicare」，不就是聯邦政府所管理的嗎？
另外，美國61%的人現在都從雇主那裏得到健保，為什麼雇主會提供健保給雇員？法律並沒有規定雇主一定要為雇員提供健保；原來，雇主為雇員支出的健保費用是免稅的，政府給予免稅，那就等於政府給予補貼，這難道不是政府介入健保？所以說，以政府不應介入健保去反對健改，是說不通的。
除了「政府不應介入健保」的誤導外，共和黨的國會議員反覆不斷地說，歐巴馬不在美國出生，因此不是公民，沒有資格當總統；這也是誤導，因為夏威夷的州政府已一再重申和證實，歐巴馬確實在夏威夷出生。
綜言之，政治原就少不了角力，但反對健改的勢力利用民眾的恐懼心理，以錯誤訊息去煽動他們前往抗議，藉此達到阻撓健改的目的，這種公然誤導民眾的手法，正是令美國政治跌至新低點的原因。(世界日報，邱鴻安專欄，8.11.2009)
Now that is hilarious stuff in the middle of this madness.
And actually yes sir, my specialty is [deprehensioprobusology] I am a [deprehensioprobusologist] thank you very much for asking...lol.
let's see if you can figure that one out, I'll buy you a beer if you can.
Do you have such specialty?
Apparently the American Medical Association has weighed in on Obama’s Nationalized Health Care Plan
The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves. The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.
The Obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a misconception. Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted. Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" while the Pediatricians said,"Oh, Grow Up."
The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it. Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing.
The Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the Plastic Surgeons said, "This puts a whole new face on the matter."
The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea. The Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas and the Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no.
In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the assholes in Washington.
This is the post I left this morning on a different WJ news.
http://www.worldjournal.com/pages/full_news/push?article-歐巴馬退縮 放棄公營健保 &id=3201409-歐巴馬退縮 放棄公營健保&instance=us_bull
The Obama administration's offer to drop a Medicare-like health insurance option for Americans under age 65 is neither a surprise nor a comfort, because it does nothing to change the administration's dangerous plan for health reform. Rather, it is a tactic designed to change the debate – one that fits nicely within the administration’s broader strategy of deception.
It was inevitable that the administration would back away from a new Medicare-like program, the demands of left-wing House Democrats notwithstanding.
We must be vigilant and not be fooled by the Tatics. We still need to keep the heat up till the bitter end!
First, he opposes any CA budget cuts on liberal social programs and advocates Fed bailing out CA.
Then Obama has signaled that he maybe dropping "public option" for his health care reform, because it's "not necessary".
Wow Mr.邱, that 0 for 2 for you!
You do realize currently in America's healthcare consists of 3 options, right?
Government sponsored medicare, government sponsored medicade, and private sector healthcare.
The existing medicare is already whopping $80 trillion in the hole...you do know that?
Each state over ran the medicaid budget by roughly hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. California alone over ran medicaid budget by $700 billion last year.
THEY ARE ALREADY BANKRUPTED!
ONLY PRIVATE SECTOR HEALTH CARE IS PROFITABLE.
Why would anyone in his/her right mind want to place another health care system in the hands of government??
Previously, I have numerous times pointed out the trouble that the so called "European style national health care" are in. That is not something we want to imitate.
As reported in the June 28 National Center for Policy Analysis' "Daily Policy Digest," Britain's Department of Health recently acknowledged that one in eight patients waits more than a year for surgery. France's failed health care system resulted in the deaths of 13,000 people, mostly of dehydration, during the heat spell of 2003. Hospitals stopped answering the phones, and ambulance attendants told people to fend for themselves.
The Vancouver, British Columbia-based Fraser Institute annually publishes "Waiting Your Turn." Its 2006 edition gives waiting times, by treatments, from a person's referral by a general practitioner to treatment by a specialist. The shortest waiting time was for oncology (4.9 weeks). The longest waiting time was for orthopedic surgery (40.3 weeks), followed by plastic surgery (35.4 weeks) and neurosurgery (31.7 weeks).
I am sorry, those are not the "WISDOM" I want to emulate after.
For your information, I detest racial overtone in discussions. Never once has I resorted to invoking it in my arguments.
I support health care reform because we cannot afford ignoring the writings on the wall: We Are Heading Down A Slippery Slope! By doing nothing, we will soon find Medicare and Medicaid will go bankrupt, the insurance premium will be beyond the reach of low income people, more and more companies will not offer health care to their employees.
There are no shortage of working health care systems that we can learn from. In times of crisis, English people will be calm and open minded to collect everone's wisdom to reach a collective solution. Why can't Americans do likewise?
Sure I did, look it up, it is buried in the posts.
You are so sensitive about Obama that any links to Obama will be your objection. (By the way, I happen not to be an Obama's supporter.)
Since when did Obama "when facing oppositions, a simple racism will shut us all up!"？
Could you provide an example？
Now, everything you said(excluding the profit part) in the last paragraph is the epic trouble that we are facing now. Yes, these are exactly the problems that is plaguing the current health care system. However, these problems can be fixed without total dismantle of the system.
Sir, you have to make rebuttals regrding the facts that I quoated off the Bill HR3200 pages and not just accuse me for fear mongering. Once you start making accusation as such, I know you are running out of argument as well as facts.
Just like Obama, when facing oppositions, a simple racism will shut us all up!
Not all abortions and sex changes are elective. Nor are plastic surgeries for that matter. You tend to paint everything with a broad brush. Your wholesale objection to them is groundless and bias.
If a bill is passed, it is an enactable law. You are fear monger, drumming up hypothetical worry.
Rationing limited resources is a universal practice. You cannot condone one and fault the other.
The private health care providers are cherry picking. They dump the poor old folks onto the lap of the government because the poor old folks are high risk. They deny coverage to people who have pre-existing conditions. They determine what you are entitled to based on contract, not your needs or conditions. They dictate what treatments you shall receive, to maintain their profit.
If you are so concerned about cost, why don't you suggest a way to reduce the malpractice litigations, reduce the unnecessary medical tests, cut down the administrative overhead and paperworks and last but not least, the obscene profits raked in by the private health care providers year in and year out?