By Christopher Moore
Public option? Heck, after this year, I don’t believe in a private option.
My personal experience with health care tells me that single-payer is the best way to go. Still. I know that is not going to happen, cause I still read about the news. And since the rest of the nation is not with me on this, I’m willing to pretend that the president’s plan represents significant progress, especially since it has all the right enemies lining up against it.
Indeed, when conservatives ask me whether I want the government running the health care system, I think back on my most recent experience with our fabled private insurance system and I have to say: bring it on.
How could I think otherwise? I spent a healthy chunk of 2009 on the phone with insurance companies, trying to figure out if I am still insured for health or for dental or whether my checks have been received or if the next time the doctor sends over her bill, it might actually be paid.
When running for president last year, then-Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton had a couple of lines about how even insured people worry about whether they are actually covered. That’s so true (like a lot of things that Clinton said during that campaign). There’s absolutely a feeling of uncertainty even among those of us who have insurance.
It becomes a guessing game. For entertainment value, we call the 24-hour hotline and punch a few buttons on the phone to inquire if we are still really covered. Or we ask if a specific procedure is covered. There’s too much built-in drama about the insurance business—and it’s way too much of a business and not enough of a social contract.
For me, the drama has been Cobra-related. Since I managed to do something trendy—get laid off from a print media job—I have learned a lot about Cobra and the not-so-wonderful world of post-work insurance. I’ve also learned that there’s something worse than the insurance companies: the outsourced, big-name human resources departments that serve as a middleman between the insurers and the insured. It gets pretty complicated when one organization tells me I’m insured and another one tells me I’m not. One person says they’ve contacted the insurers, then the insurers report they do not have that data in the computer yet. The strain of it all has brought me to tears on two occasions, three if you count the time I started weeping in my dentist’s office on West End Avenue. I guess we should count that.
I’m hardly the only one who is stressed out. All this misinformation and madness happens with our existing, private system. And I’m supposed to be afraid of government bureaucrats? Well, I’m not.
So bring on government health care. Please. Pronto. Especially since my experience with the government itself, namely New York’s Department of Labor, has been so pleasant. I’m talking about unemployment insurance, not my favorite subject, but one that is handled sensibly online and impressively in person. I’ve been to three panel discussions sponsored by the unemployment division on Varick Street. Each time I’ve come away knowing things I did not know. Each time I’ve been impressed with the professionalism I’ve encountered. Each time I’ve been amazed at how the counselors and speakers there treat people like me, people who are going through some of the worst moments of their lives. Each time I’ve been reminded that government is not them, it’s us. We’re the government.
And I think it’s time we took care of ourselves, especially when it comes to health care.
Yes, I’ve heard the Republican rant about how health care reform is not as important as jobs, jobs, jobs. One of the main terrors of losing a job, though, is losing health care. The two issues are inextricably related. But they shouldn’t be. So let’s divide them and make certain that Americans have health care—whether they have a job or not.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
The Quote Didn’t Fly
It’s enough to make one remember fondly to the time when we did not have a Secretary of Homeland Security.
Don’t get me wrong: I like Janet Napolitano. But I woke up this morning to her quote about the crisis in skies, or more specifically our most recent near-miss. “The system worked,” she said—and then she worked overtime to insist she was talking about everything that happened after the incident in question. She told “Today” today that the system “did not work” beforehand. Right. I get what she’s saying, but it all smells a bit too much like the famous “Heck of a job, Brownie.”
The homeland security chief’s luck will turn on whether anybody was paying attention during the last week of the year. Otherwise, the phrase “the system worked” could resonate, because it reminds people of the disconnect between what their government says and what it’s like actually to live in the real world.
Speaking of the real world…I was flying recently and I noticed something: it sucks. Bigtime. Especially for anyone flying out of a New York City airport. There is a feeling of being under siege from start to finish. The security atmosphere costs us something, so much so that each time I stand in that line I think of two people, both fictional: Archie Bunker and Bill Maher. Archie used to suggest arming all the passengers. Maher, doing his newsy HBO shtick, says we should have an airline where people can just take their chances and not have to go through security. I like Maher’s idea…and Archie’s is growing on me.
Don’t get me wrong: I like Janet Napolitano. But I woke up this morning to her quote about the crisis in skies, or more specifically our most recent near-miss. “The system worked,” she said—and then she worked overtime to insist she was talking about everything that happened after the incident in question. She told “Today” today that the system “did not work” beforehand. Right. I get what she’s saying, but it all smells a bit too much like the famous “Heck of a job, Brownie.”
The homeland security chief’s luck will turn on whether anybody was paying attention during the last week of the year. Otherwise, the phrase “the system worked” could resonate, because it reminds people of the disconnect between what their government says and what it’s like actually to live in the real world.
Speaking of the real world…I was flying recently and I noticed something: it sucks. Bigtime. Especially for anyone flying out of a New York City airport. There is a feeling of being under siege from start to finish. The security atmosphere costs us something, so much so that each time I stand in that line I think of two people, both fictional: Archie Bunker and Bill Maher. Archie used to suggest arming all the passengers. Maher, doing his newsy HBO shtick, says we should have an airline where people can just take their chances and not have to go through security. I like Maher’s idea…and Archie’s is growing on me.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
TV: Sawyer’s Smart Start
I thought Diane Sawyer got off to a good start on Monday night. Then I missed the evening news last night because I was out.
Which is pretty much the story of the evening news.
It’s conventional wisdom, especially among hardworking and busy New Yorkers: nobody is home to watch the news at 6:30 evening news shows. I think in this case conventional wisdom is right. And even in the age of DVR-ing everything, even a newshound like me only rarely would record an evening news show. Cause there’s another one rolling around every few minutes.
So Sawyer’s prize, the evening news anchor slot, is more a ceremonial victory than a tangible one. She may have had more media power had she stayed in place on “Good Morning America.” But Sawyer and I are both old enough—especially this week, since her birthday was yesterday and mine is today—to remember the era when the evening anchor was the face of the network. And he still is. Or, more accurately and more excitingly, she is.
Anyway, Sawyer did a good job. Mostly by being the anti-Katie. I’m not a Couric-basher and think she was unfairly criticized for about a year after she landed at the “CBS Evening News,” but Sawyer seems to have learned the lessons of the Couric debut. Sawyer did not try to reinvent the evening news program, whose audience probably is not up for that anyway. Instead, she dived into the dullness—giving us a surprisingly well-edited newscast that bravely began with a lengthy (by TV standards) health care report. That included a smart series of answers to questions that audience members had sent in. And Sawyer’s news-reading style was even livelier than the news deserved.
I read a mean piece in the Post by Kyle Smith about how Sawyer’s show was full of old news. But I don’t think so. I think the program was professional and almost shockingly smart. Well-paced. I’d give Sawyer high marks, whether anybody is actually watching or not. Maybe somebody will.
Which is pretty much the story of the evening news.
It’s conventional wisdom, especially among hardworking and busy New Yorkers: nobody is home to watch the news at 6:30 evening news shows. I think in this case conventional wisdom is right. And even in the age of DVR-ing everything, even a newshound like me only rarely would record an evening news show. Cause there’s another one rolling around every few minutes.
So Sawyer’s prize, the evening news anchor slot, is more a ceremonial victory than a tangible one. She may have had more media power had she stayed in place on “Good Morning America.” But Sawyer and I are both old enough—especially this week, since her birthday was yesterday and mine is today—to remember the era when the evening anchor was the face of the network. And he still is. Or, more accurately and more excitingly, she is.
Anyway, Sawyer did a good job. Mostly by being the anti-Katie. I’m not a Couric-basher and think she was unfairly criticized for about a year after she landed at the “CBS Evening News,” but Sawyer seems to have learned the lessons of the Couric debut. Sawyer did not try to reinvent the evening news program, whose audience probably is not up for that anyway. Instead, she dived into the dullness—giving us a surprisingly well-edited newscast that bravely began with a lengthy (by TV standards) health care report. That included a smart series of answers to questions that audience members had sent in. And Sawyer’s news-reading style was even livelier than the news deserved.
I read a mean piece in the Post by Kyle Smith about how Sawyer’s show was full of old news. But I don’t think so. I think the program was professional and almost shockingly smart. Well-paced. I’d give Sawyer high marks, whether anybody is actually watching or not. Maybe somebody will.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Wanted: A More Potent Protest
I don’t know whether New Yorkers have heard yet, but the gays are angry.
Count me among them.
Yesterday’s vote in the New York State Senate on marriage equality did not go our way. So it’s unsurprising to receive an email today about how tonight, December 3, there will be a protest in Union Square. I think that is a legitimate response and it makes sense for a community to come together after a ridiculous rejection of our basic civil rights.
But I cannot help but also think that there are other things to do. Nobody should call himself or herself a homo today—or a friend of gay people—unless he/she has written a note to thank the Senators who stood by our side yesterday. These are days for emails and phone messages and letters—I hear that the old-fashioned letter is still very much a smart way to go—and it would not be a bad time to write a few checks to a few campaigns. (Well, not me. I don't have a damn job.) Also, a few hostile emails, phone messages, letters sent to the bad guys would be nice, too.
As for gathering in Union Square, good enough. Nothing wrong with rallying the base. But I think we need to have some marches in the suburbs and upstate, whether the State Senators who screwed us—and not in a good way—actually live and work and do a lousy job of representing their gay and lesbian constituents.
We could go a bit more global in our perspective, too. This would be an fine time to tell our straight sisters and brothers that we are going to stop going to their goddamn weddings. That we will be passing on Cousin Susie’s engagement party. That maybe, just maybe, we are done looking at and buying from those online gift registries. It’s time at least to consider in a serious way some serious action—methods that might hit back in an economic way. I’m not sure whether that would work or if it would just wind up hurting gay and lesbian people who work for the companies where we would be cutting back. But it’s clear that our present is a little too sweet and not quite as effective as it needs to be. A big brainstorming session is needed.
Count me among them.
Yesterday’s vote in the New York State Senate on marriage equality did not go our way. So it’s unsurprising to receive an email today about how tonight, December 3, there will be a protest in Union Square. I think that is a legitimate response and it makes sense for a community to come together after a ridiculous rejection of our basic civil rights.
But I cannot help but also think that there are other things to do. Nobody should call himself or herself a homo today—or a friend of gay people—unless he/she has written a note to thank the Senators who stood by our side yesterday. These are days for emails and phone messages and letters—I hear that the old-fashioned letter is still very much a smart way to go—and it would not be a bad time to write a few checks to a few campaigns. (Well, not me. I don't have a damn job.) Also, a few hostile emails, phone messages, letters sent to the bad guys would be nice, too.
As for gathering in Union Square, good enough. Nothing wrong with rallying the base. But I think we need to have some marches in the suburbs and upstate, whether the State Senators who screwed us—and not in a good way—actually live and work and do a lousy job of representing their gay and lesbian constituents.
We could go a bit more global in our perspective, too. This would be an fine time to tell our straight sisters and brothers that we are going to stop going to their goddamn weddings. That we will be passing on Cousin Susie’s engagement party. That maybe, just maybe, we are done looking at and buying from those online gift registries. It’s time at least to consider in a serious way some serious action—methods that might hit back in an economic way. I’m not sure whether that would work or if it would just wind up hurting gay and lesbian people who work for the companies where we would be cutting back. But it’s clear that our present is a little too sweet and not quite as effective as it needs to be. A big brainstorming session is needed.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Out—and With Considerable Class
It’s interesting that Meredith Baxter this morning on the “Today” show announced that she’s a lesbian. Cause with that fantastic haircut of hers, she made me wonder if I might be straight after all
Nah.
But I liked Baxter. I’ve been liking Baxter for a few decades now, stretching back to when she was the mom with all the right answers on “Family Ties.” While I was impressed with the way she conducted herself this morning, getting out in front of the tabloid tale about her sexuality, I also kept thinking: this woman needs a weekly series. She has the kind of likable personality that makes me want to watch her on TV regularly. She’s more than aging gracefully—she’s aging beautifully. Smartly, too.
Baxter and Matt Lauer were both pretty good. They seemed to recognize the ridiculousness of the ritual in which they were engaged. And still they were able to go through it with an endearing awkwardness. He wondered aloud how to ask the question about why she was there. She stressed that she’s a private person who does not like to talk about her personal life. But she was smart enough to realize—and to state aloud—that there are political implications to the announcement of something that can feel so personal. Her remarks resonate all the more at this hour, as the New York State Senate debates whether to grand marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples in New York State.
Nah.
But I liked Baxter. I’ve been liking Baxter for a few decades now, stretching back to when she was the mom with all the right answers on “Family Ties.” While I was impressed with the way she conducted herself this morning, getting out in front of the tabloid tale about her sexuality, I also kept thinking: this woman needs a weekly series. She has the kind of likable personality that makes me want to watch her on TV regularly. She’s more than aging gracefully—she’s aging beautifully. Smartly, too.
Baxter and Matt Lauer were both pretty good. They seemed to recognize the ridiculousness of the ritual in which they were engaged. And still they were able to go through it with an endearing awkwardness. He wondered aloud how to ask the question about why she was there. She stressed that she’s a private person who does not like to talk about her personal life. But she was smart enough to realize—and to state aloud—that there are political implications to the announcement of something that can feel so personal. Her remarks resonate all the more at this hour, as the New York State Senate debates whether to grand marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples in New York State.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
