Democrats are spineless
Well, I guess I shouldn't say that statement applies to all Democrats. However, I'm certainly willing to question a good chunk of them after this weekend.
The House passed their version of health care reform, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, this weekend. The bill includes, among other things, a public option to be established by (I believe) 2013. However, it's something that made it in there at the last minute that really shows what could be in store.
The House bill contains the Stupak Amendment, which lays out what is covered and not covered with regards to abortions. Stupak's concern was that he didn't want public funding to pay for abortions. This would mainly be the public insurance option and private companies that participate in the health care exchange also proposed in the bill. The bill originally stated that this could be remedied in a few steps:
- Have providers set up two seperate accounts: one for public money and one for money from premiums. Any abortions covered would be out of the premium account.
- For people who didn't want their premium money potentially going towards funding abortions, there would have to be at least one plan in the exchange that does not cover abortion, as well as one that does.
Problem solved? Not if you're Bart Stupak.
The passed bill includes Stupak's amendments which basically states two very important tidbits:
- Any person or family receiving a government subsidy for health insurance (also included in the bill) is prohibited from purchasing a plan that covers abortions.
- Any insurance comapny that participates in the government exchange is prohibited from covering abortions, except in the case of rape, incest, and the "mother's life being in danger."
Approximately 50% of insurance plans offer some sort of coverage for abortions as of 2008. So basically, if you're a member of Blue Cross/Blue Shield and your plan covers abortions, you would lose this coverage regardless if you get insurance through an employer, through a government subsidy, or even if you pay your entire premium out-of-pocket.
This a serious hit to reproductive rights. But that's not even the part that makes me the maddest. What makes me really angry is that a good percentage of the Democrats who voted for the bill did so despite carrying the "pro-choice" banner. Pelosi, for example, has a voting history that has been scored as 100% pro-choice. But she, along with many Democrats, were so desperate to pass a health care bill that it didn't matter if it clashed with one of the major ideals for many in the party.
So now we're one step closer to "reform." Great. Too bad this is going to do nothing but potentially kill the bill in the Senate and/or anger a good percentage of the pro-choice demographic. Go ahead and celebrate your "victory," Madam Speaker, but some of us see this for what it truly is: selling yourself out to pass something that was nothing more than a self-serving move with the hopes of advancing your political career.
And sadly, that simply makes you one of roughly 540 people in Congress who are just as bad.
The media’s misplaced priorities
I like to catch up on current events on a daily basis, and sometimes that requires more research than other days. Sadly, this isn't because there's less happening or anything of the sort; it's because the major American news outlets would rather cover such "hot topics" as Michael Jackson's estate (four months and counting now?), Linday Lohan's latest look, and the Balloon Boy.
This type of thing has bothered me for years. After all, I really couldn't care less about Paris Hilton going to jail. (That goes to show how easy it is to be a celebrity nowadays too: we're talking about someone who's famous because they party a lot and made a sex tape.) I also really don't care about which couple is breaking up now. But then I saw a headline on Fox News (the king of inflammatory and biased headlines, but I'll save that for another day) that really got me:
Is the media's coverage of the Balloon Boy taking the focus away from the Afghan war?
That's right: the media, while talking about the balloon boy, is complaining that they're ignoring the important issues. Well, I have a way to solve that problem: STOP TALKING ABOUT THE BALLOON BOY.
It's always an interesting, borderline-sad and infuriating debate. People complain about why celebrities and silly fluff stories get more prominence and coverage than the real issues affecting the country and the world. Those in the media have countered before by saying that these are the types of things that interest viewers. This is technically true, but they forget a very important caveat to that: people care about this because the media tells them to care about it.
There's a fun little theory in mass media (I sure hope Dr. Hantz doesn't read this if I get this wrong) called Agenda Setting. The concept is actually pretty simple: the media tells you which topics are important simply by the amount of coverage and the type of coverage they provide. For example, if a person's network of choice spends 45 minutes an hour talking about reality TV, Balloon Boy, and Michael Jackson, that person will eventually be conditioned to think that these stories really are the most important. Then they will make sure to seek out news sources which best suits their interests. Quite the cycle, if you ask me.
I yearn for the day when we can find a news source that objectively covers the news that actually impacts us the most. The big networks probably won't do it anytime soon, and the smaller sites and blogs that do cover these stories are typically so right-leaning or left-leaning that it's hard to tell what's fact and what's spin. It's sad.
So what's the best thing you can do? You could read news sites with an international focus; you can find plenty of U.S. stories, but they cover things like the economy and legal happenings. In a perfect world, people would start turning off their TVs and start ignoring the misplaced priorities of the big media. When their ratings go in the toilet, they would be forced to re-tool.
Then again, I guess I can be a little too idealistic sometimes.
Recent Greatness
Blogroll
- Extended AIM Profile Terence’s blog
- Profiles in Cuteness
- Shanenanigans Shane Ryan’s blog
- The Elephant Flies at Night
- The Mrs.
Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jul | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||