Lil Miss Hot Mess

Oh dear.  It’s like I’ve been having hot flashes since my last post about health care.  Or hot-and-cold flashes.

After reading more, I don’t think I’m ready to concede on Single Payer.  I take it back.  Do I think it’s realistic in this political moment where Sebelius and Obama have allegedly decided that a national public plan isn’t particularly necessary?  Probably not.  Do I still think it’s our best bet for ensuring access to quality health care for all.  Yes, ma’am.

I just watched this really great video from Rachel Maddow about the current situation we’re in:

Here are the three things I appreciate about this video:

1. The fact that she’s talking about Single Payer at all.
2. The way she shows the obnoxiousness of the Republicans’ double-speak, and also the Democrats’ lack of ability to organize (or lack of a desire to).
3. Her use of the phrase “Dude may say he wants pizza, but he really obviously doesn’t.”

I feel like the only thing she’s really missing is an analysis of the insurance lobby (and other corporate interests) in this conversation.

For those who want a more thorough and articulate explanation of why Single Payer is by far the best way to go, I highly recommend these FAQs put out by Physicians for a National Health Program.  Reading it is like reading about a dream world:

Who will run the health care system?

There is a myth that with national health insurance the government will make the medical decisions. But in a publicly financed, universal health care system, medical decisions are left to the patient and doctor, as they should be. This is true even in the countries like the U.K. and Spain (or in U.S. systems like the VA) that have socialized medicine.

In a public system, the public has a say in how it’s run. Cost containment measures are publicly managed at the state level by elected and appointed agencies that represent the public. This agency decides on the benefit package and negotiates doctor fees and hospital budgets. It also is responsible for health planning and the distribution of expensive technology. Thus, the total budget for health care is set through a public, democratic process. But clinical decisions remain a private matter between doctor and patient.

Also, I want to once again plug the organization that my friends are working on: The Young Invincibles.  While I’d rather see a strong movement for Single Payer, I actually think we’re sort of in a “both/and” moment now.  That is, we’ve really got to hold onto our vision while still pushing back on the attacks against a watered-down version of a national health plan.  I think Young Invincibles will do great work of mobilizing people, and even if we aren’t likely to get Single Payer now, it’s still worth keeping the door open.

Right now I’m listening to the Congressional Progressive and Tri- Caucuses’ press conference demanding a strong national healthcare option, and vowing to not vote for the so-called Blue Dog’s watered-down plan.  While I’d rather see a Single-Payer system, I guess I’m ready to concede to the moment and see us win something decent, even if not perfect.  Also, while I’m not always that into electoral politics, it’s still inspiring to hear Congresspeople talking about healthcare being a human right.

Also, while I’m at it, a friend of mine is part of a group organizing young people to fight for quality healthcare for all.  They’re called Young Invincibles, and I highly recommend checking them out.

I’ll admit it: I haven’t been following the Sotomayor nomination or hearings very closely at all. Basically, I watched Rachel Maddow’s interview with Pat Buchanan and was horrified (and clearly not surprised) by his overt racism.  I also read John Nichols’ article in The Nation about Senator Klobuchar’s engaged questions during the hearing process.  And I’ve skimmed a couple of other articles here and there that touch a bit on her record.  But that’s about it.

I’ve also come across these two images in the past few days, and I wanted to display them side-by-side, because I partially agree with both of them:

(Click the second one to read it completely.)  The first is by Bay Area artist Favianna Rodriguez, who I’ve met a few times, whose work I love, and whose politics and political commitment I admire.  (It’s also in the window of my adorable downstairs neighbors.)  The second I discovered on the Queers Against Obama blog, which reposted the image from a political web-comic called For Fuck’s Sake.

I guess I just want to hold both of these at the same time.  Like Obama’s election, I think the historic moment and feeling of victory — especially, but not exclusively, in many communities of color — are not to be completely dismissed.  On the other hand, I don’t want the symbolism of the moment to obscure the realities of our present crises (and their historical legacies).

As is often the case, I’m looking for an analysis that’s both, or at least somewhere in the middle.  Is that too much to ask for?