Gough Whitlam, who served as Prime Minister of Australia from 1972 to 1975, has died at age 98. Being a typical navel-gazing American, I didn’t know about him until a “constant reader” who prefers to remain anonymous brought him to my attention.
But Prime Minister Whitlam is credited with an amazing list of achievements for Australians, including the establishment of universal healthcare, free college tuition, promotion of women’s and minorities’ rights, abolition of the death penalty, ending Australia’s participation in the Vietnam War, protecting the environment and lowering the voting age to 18.
Did I mention he served as Prime Minister for only a few years? Astonishing! Rest in peace, Prime Minister Whitlam.
SiubhanDuinne
I have a few Australian friends on Facebook. They are all absolutely gutted at Whitlam’s passing, despite his venerable age. What a tribute, to be that beloved even decades after leaving public life.
Vale, Gough Whitlam.
Violet
How do you say his first name? Is it like ‘cough’? Or is it an unusual spelling of “Jeff”. Or something else?
I had no idea what he accomplished. An amazing man.
big ole hound
He brought Australia from a backwater rough and ready version of the old American West with mining and ranching being the big political players to a modern society that takes care of it’s citizens. The healthcare and college funding is very big deal there. We should have followed that example.
RM MD
A great pointer, but there’s another aspect of the story. Whitlam succeeded despite unrelenting opposition from Australia’s conservatives, who are actually named the Liberal Party. They controlled the Australian Senate (ahem), which refused to pass budgets to keep the government going (ahem ahem.)
Worst of all, Whitlam was pushed out and his government toppled by the Governor General, acting in collusion with the opposition. It was technically legal, but unprecedented in the UK/Aussie parliamentary system.
Here’s a quick overview of what happened from the Guardian.
Amir Khalid
@Violet:
Like “golf” without the L.
Amir Khalid
Wikipedia mentions that Whitlam was the only Australian PM to be fired by the Governor-General, in a constitutional crisis over appropriations bills that was engineered by the opposition Liberal party. (It’s confusing, but the Liberals are actually Australia’s conservative party.)
Betty Cracker
@Amir Khalid: It is confusing. I almost titled this post “Australia’s Liberal Lion,” but then I remembered the word doesn’t have the same connotation there, in politics, anyway.
BGinCHI
That’s change I can believe in.
Crikey.
Tree With Water
Australia’s ’emo progressives/liberals’ must have basked in the sun when Whitlam was in the saddle, eh?
Trollhattan
Didn’t know of him either, other than in a general sense. That’s quite a CV.
I presume that after everybody has left the ceremony, PM Abbott will stick around long enough to piss on Whitlam’s grave.
Cervantes
When Suharto wanted to annex East Timor it was Whitlam who gave him the green light.
And Kissinger, of course.
Amir Khalid
@Cervantes:
In the early 1960s, the Indonesians wanted all of Borneo for themselves, and they were really upset when Sabah and Sarawak joined Malaysia instead. They were even more upset when they went to war with us over it and lost the Confrontation. So I guess the World Powers decided to let them have East Timor as a consolation, to keep them from making trouble elsewhere.
John Dillinger
@Trollhattan: What makes you think he’ll wait until people leave?
SiubhanDuinne
@Violet: I asked that last night. Apparently it is Goff.
ETA: As others quicker than I have already noted.
Violet
@Amir Khalid: @SiubhanDuinne: Thanks. It’s a name I haven’t seen before.
Litlebritdifrnt
Really funny tweet by Weigel just now
Ha ha!
Redshift
@Amir Khalid: Weirdly, on the BBC radio announcement of his death yesterday, that was the only thing they mentioned (unless I came in in the middle and don’t remember it.)
Violet
@Litlebritdifrnt: Better if black people in West African style clothing stood outside polling places in white neighborhoods. Better yet if they speak with an accent that sounds like its from West Africa.
Mike in NC
Never heard of him either. If he tried to pull any of that stuff in the USofA, he’d have been tarred and feathered. Instead we get phoney “compassionate conservatives”.
SWMBO
@Violet: They wouldn’t have to speak in West African accents. Just cough occasionally or fake sneeze.
Gin & Tonic
@Violet: I find your inherent assumption that people in America would be able to distinguish a West African accent from an East African or South African one (or even a West Indian one) quaintly amusing.
Trollhattan
@John Dillinger: Did I give him too much credit? Wouldn’t be the first time.
ranchandsyrup
@Trollhattan: hey TH, you see the LA times piece about our old buddies at the Westlands Water District? Failin upwards as always. Linky
Loviatar
Australia from an ideologue with a little passion and a bully pulpit got:
1. Free universal medical care
– Gough Whitlam created Medibank as a key policy proposal in 1972. It gave Australians free access to hospitals and a range of medical services. The heart of the proposals are now seen in the scheme known as Medicare.
2. Scrapping university fees for a generation of students.
– Gough Whitlam removed fees for universities in 1974 seeing a huge increase in the number of Australians receiving tertiary education.
3. Aboriginal land rights.
– Gough Whitlam returned the traditional lands of the Gurindji people to Vincent Lingiari in 1975. He poured the red dirt into his hands signaling the returning of the Wave Hill Station.
4. The Racial Discrimination Act.
– Gough Whitlam enacted the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975, making it illegal to discriminate in Australia based on ethnicity or country of origin.
5. A diplomatic relationship with China.
– Gough Whitlam was the first Australian Prime Minister to visit China, with Prime Minister Abbott crediting him with creating the modern relationship.
6. Women in power.
– Gough Whitlam was the first world leader to appoint a dedicated adviser for women’s affairs, when he gave the position to Elizabeth Reid in 1973.
7. Ending Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War.
– Gough Whitlam announced all Australian troops would be withdrawn and by 1973 he officially ended involvement in the Vietnam War.
8. Ending conscription.
– Gough Whitlam brought an end to conscription in the early days of his government and those who had been jailed for refusing to join the army were released.
9. Ending the death penalty.
– Gough Whitlam abolished the death penalty for federal crimes in 1972 and it hasn’t been back since.
10. Legal aid.
– Gough Whitlam created the Australian Legal Aid Office in 1973 with an office in each state in the country providing state money for those who need legal representation.
11. The Australian national anthem.
– Gough Whitlam announced a national competition for a new anthem to replace “God Save The Queen” in 1972. After public polls and votes, “Advance Australia Fair” became the new anthem in 1984.
12. The Order of Australia.
– Gough Whitlam created the system of national decorations known as the “Order of Australia” in 1975, seeing the scrapping of the old titles of “Knights” and “Dames”. Of course the imperial titles were re-instituted by the current Abbott Government this year.
13. Protected environmental sites.
– Gough Whitlam ratified the World Heritage Convention in 1974 which gave the government the power to protect environmental sites designated significant by UNESCO.
14. Lowering the voting to 18.
– Gough Whitlam lead the charge to lower the voting age to 18, which was brought about in 1973.
15. Young people in politics.
– Gough Whitlam is widely credited with bringing young people into politics with his socially progressive policies and revolutionary “It’s Time” election campaign.
16. Oh and of course there’s always Triple J.
– Gough Whitlam started 2JJ in 1975 just before being dismissed from government. It spawned into a national youth radio network now known as Triple J.
Good job Mr. Whitlam. A life well spent.
———-
From our pragmatist (who will have had twice as many years in office), we got Obamacare.
WHOOPIE DAMM DOO
JCJ
@Tree With Water:
In Australia wouldn’t they be known as emu-progs?
Amir Khalid
@Loviatar:
You got a lot more than Obamacare from Obama. Don’t sell your own president short.
Violet
@Gin & Tonic: Oh, I didn’t mean that. I said an accent that “sounds like” a West African accent. That’s in the ears of the listener. Could be any damn accent.
Trollhattan
@ranchandsyrup:
Sweet mother of…. Very sorry Rep. Miller is retiring, as he’s been a useful thorn in their side for a long time and is very knowledgable about the water contracts. And if I’m Bettina Boxall, I’m using the mirror to check the underside of my car for awhile.
Elizabelle
Makes you wonder why we never heard of him. I sure had not.
Why do we hear about conservative leaders overseas? Most of us could name 5-8 off the top of our heads.
It’s my understanding that Mr. Whitlam was PM for three years. The Guardian has over 1,000 reader comments on his passing.
scav
@Violet: O boy! You wan bring wahala come my domot today o! A few phrases in Naija pidgin (play here or, oh golly here for bigger playbox) and tell then you need some help transferring your recently deceased arákùnrin bàbá’s legacy out of the country without paying duties and could they possibly loan you their card and PIN number? Either way, bit of a win.
Gravenstone
@Amir Khalid: Pain Bringer is an emo-prog of the very highest order (with distinction). Engaging it is an utter waste of your time and bandwidth.
ranchandsyrup
@Trollhattan: that deal the govt is cutting is awful.
KG
has anyone been able to figure out the truth behind the “omg obama is going to unilaterally legalize all the illegal aliens” story? newsmax has it up on their thing, and i saw something about it on facebook this morning. all i’ve been able to find is a briebart “exclusive” and echo chamber bullshit.
SiubhanDuinne
@JCJ:
Groan.
JCJ
@SiubhanDuinne:
Sorry!
Trollhattan
As we await “Mr Dynamite” on HBO, some James Brown band member interviews.
Tone In DC
I can’t even deal with Newsmax headlines. Those idjits make the National Enquirer look like professional, responsible journalists.
As for Whitlam, the work in those three years was indeed a job well done.
Though Abbott seems to be doing his damndest to undo a significant amount of it.
AussieJim
The thing to understand about Gough Whitlam personally that he was about five times as smart as everyone else. He knew it too, and it showed. When he first became Prime Minister he formed a government of two ministers, he and his deputy, instead of the usual 25 or so. He later observed that the only problem was that his government was “twice the size it needed to be”.
His off-the-cuff speech after his controversial sacking in 1975 is short, perfect, and well worth watching.
And you wouldn’t want to debate against him. Quoting Whitlam retelling one parliamentary debate: “When Sir Winton Turnbull was raving and ranting on the adjournment and shouted ‘I am a Country member’, I interjected ‘I remember’. He could not understand why, for the first time in all the years he had been speaking in the House, there was instant and loud applause from both sides.”
Ripley
It’s a growth industry!
Trollhattan
@ranchandsyrup:
Folks who don’t remember Kesterson might be surprised to find there’s basically a slow-motion fracking program going on, only from the surface down. Poisoned soil is the result, either way.
The Dangerman
@Loviatar:
He did accomplish quite a lot; I assume the Australian System of governance doesn’t have a system in place to block progress (we call it the Senate) that is filled with petulant assholes (they are called John McCain) or have states whose sole purpose in life is to fuck people (we call them “Texas”).
Lee
@Loviatar:
Let me know when we have a parliamentary system.
Betty Cracker
@Amir Khalid: True, but it is frustrating as an American to see other countries get nice things that we just can’t have — like single payer, gun control, etc. It’s not Obama’s fault, but it is maddening sometimes.
Mike J
@Betty Cracker: If you want gun control you need a massacre of the size they had. Scaled to American population you need to have over 1,000 people killed in one incident.
Trollhattan
In which I startle myself by agreeing with the local dead-tree paper, word-for-word.
Will go out on a limb and guess their inbox has filled with rage-o-grams, 80:20 ammosexuals:antivaxxers.
The Dangerman
@Mike J:
Go up an order of magnitude (10K+) and there still wouldn’t be gun control in the USA. That issue is dead, Jim.
Mike J
@The Dangerman: Depends on which 10,000 get killed, and by whom.
srv
Great man, sadly Australia seems to be sinking back into the throes of Wingnuttia.
It’s also hard to be rich today:
gene108
@Loviatar:
I know people feel like America is some sort of rght-wing fascist dictatorship, but on some issues we are on par or ahead of other OECD nations.
Some things that America has also done, on paper, if not in practice:
Would love to know more about how Aboriginal rights are versus U.S. Native American status. Part of me thinks the U.S. is actually better than Australia. I’m not saying the U.S. is good, but Native Americans in politics, sports, etc. is not new, though uncommon. I remember a big to-do in the 2000 Sydney games that Australia had a woman track and field competitor with aboriginal ties.
From Cathy Freeman’s wiki page
Link
I know Olympics isn’t everything, but generally speaking I think the U.S. has been better than Australia in this regard.
U.S. has the 14th and 15th Amendments and passed the first Civil Rights Act in 1866. We may not have enforced these laws on the books, but on paper we’re a 110 years ahead of Australia in this regard.
U.S. did this at about the same time.
We have been theoretically doing this since our founding, though, like with Civil Rights, the actual process and follow throw are often lacking.
We did come up with the EPA, Endangered Species Act, etc. during a similar time period.
USA did this a few years earlier, I believe.
**********************************
Whitlam is an influential and accomplished person, who did the right things for his country.
There things he did that the USA has also done.
We do not suck as hard as some people have come to believe.
Elizabelle
@KG:
I am seeing an uptick in anti-amnesty sentiment on NYTimes threads. I think someone (GOP? other?) is using the issue to try to prevent African Americans from turning out to vote in the midterms. Telling them: look — Obama does not have YOUR economic wellbeing at heart. (Never mind that the GOP doesn’t either.)
If you care to wade through them, here is a recent article about “Democrats place their hopes with black voters” (because white voters are deserting the party). Comments can be ugly. Sometimes I see this and wonder if someone is trying to get people riled up to take a shot at the President.
NY Times. 2 days ago. Black Vote Seen as Last Hope for Democrats to Hold Senate.
note: comments will appear at top right of screen. You can sort for “reader’s picks” and come to comments by “Joanna from the Bay Area”, with avatar of an Asian woman, pretty quickly.
The Washington Post ran a similar story after, but their search engine is so awful I can’t find it easily. And the comments are likely to be worse. (Drudge’s flying monkeys flood many WaPost threads. The NYTimes moderates its comments, so they succeed less there.)
The Dangerman
@Mike J:
Perhaps, but I was shocked by the response of MORE GUNS after Sandy Hook.
Now, if the death toll of 10K includes several thousand that were carrying that started shooting other innocents and each other (since no one could tell the Good Guys from the Bad Guys), well, then maybe we’d have some progress.
ETA: Progress beyond taking a lot of the stupid out of the Gene Pool, I mean.
Elizabelle
Here it is. Thank you Google. Nia-Malika Henderson. Washington Post.
President Obama was wrong. Democrats won’t lose because of black voters.
Her first and last paragraphs:
srv
@gene108:
So he was as liberal as Richard Nixon.
MomSense
@Loviatar:
Well it was a big fucking whoopie damm doo for my family. I guess you didn’t need access to medical care but I certainly did for myself and my kids.
Elizabelle
@Loviatar:
Being able to sign up for health insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions is goddamn “whoopie damm doo” for more people than you realize.
And that holds for people without pre-existing conditions. Previously, insurance companies employed whole staffs to pore over applications and rescind coverage once the insured person required coverage.
Obamacare is a game-changer. And opponents in this country are way more organized than in the Southern Hemisphere.
srv
@MomSense: Australian sense of healthcare is a free pack of Prince Alberts.
Roger Moore
@The Dangerman:
I was thinking more along the lines of a
decapitation attackmass shooting at NRA headquarters.Loviatar
@gene108:
Thoughtful articulate response deserves a followup.
———-
The joy seen here over President Obama’s signature legislation is a perfect example of why we suck.
The president’s solution to providing healthcare to the uninsured is a Rube Goldberg contraption with so many moving parts that even its architects only hope to understand all of its parts and how they work together. Within a generation of his leaving office the opponents who hate it will find a way to dismantle it. It won’t be a big repeal vote, it will probably be some minor language inserted into a bill that will either cut or deny funding to a critical part of the legislation (For an example of how its going to happen see the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act which now effectively denies assistance to most families). Or a judge’s ruling that effectively guts a critical part of the legislation (Halbig v. Burwell).
Instead of anger at a wasted opportunity and a
second bestcrappy solution, we have joy that something, anything was passed. The only time I feel that kind of joy is when I’m constipated. This country has retreated to a pre-civil rights mentality on social issues and a pre-new deal mentality in regards to economic issues. It may not be as blatant as in the past, but the mentality is there in all the ways that matter. And since our government is run by a far right and center right coalition, that is supported here (pragmatism) as much as any rightwing blog supports Ted Cruz, we are screwed.So, we really do suck as hard as some of us believe.
———-
P.S.
In reading further about Mr. Whitlam one of the reasons I’ve become more and more enamored with him is that he took the hit. He so far has been the only Australian PM to be recalled by the Governor General. He set out to accomplish great things in his time in office and he did. He didn’t worry about the consequences or reelection, he wasn’t a pragmatist, he was an ideologue. He believed and look what he accomplished. Do what I’ve done, compare his accomplishments to what the pragmatist have accomplished here in the past six years. However, don’t start from some point in history, start from when they both entered office and judge the accomplishments from that point.
Cervantes
@Loviatar:
Your list is not a bad one. Did you include how Whitlam dealt with the so-called “White Australia” policy?
Baud
@Loviatar:
The argument that we should hate Obamacare instead of being proud of it was weak before it was implemented and has only gotten weaker over time. Nothing we ever do will live up to the fantasy view of what we should have done. You’re, of course, entitled to your own opinion and judgment, but I’m glad that folks here mostly don’t agree with you.
Mnemosyne
@Loviatar:
Shorter Loviatar: I already have health insurance, so I would have been able to wait for something better to come along.
Seriously, it’s pretty assholish to tell people who are thrilled to finally be able to take their kids to the doctor that they shouldn’t have it because it doesn’t meet your high standards. By your standards, we wouldn’t have Social Security, because it was deliberately designed to exclude African-Americans when it first passed. It was only upon further revisions that they were included.
Roger Moore
@Cervantes: @Baud: @Mnemosyne:
DNFTT. HTH.
NobodySpecial
@Baud: He does, however, raise an important point in that all of it can be rolled back piecemeal…and if we don’t enforce some kind of discipline on the Blue Dogs in the Congress, it WILL be rolled back.
Baud
@NobodySpecial:
That’s true of everything. See voting rights, for example. Eternal vigilance and all that. And I’m still more concerned about Republicans than Blue Dogs.
Cervantes
@Roger Moore: I have not the slightest idea what you just said.
Mnemosyne
@Baud:
I’ll wring my hands about the remnants of the Blue Dogs once we have both houses of Congress back under Democratic control again. Until then, it seems an awful lot like worrying about ebola during flu season.
@Cervantes:
Do Not Feed The Troll. Happy To Help.
Loviatar
@Mnemosyne:
And this is why I dropped off from commenting here. instead of rebutting my argument, I get insults.
I’ve been without healthcare, I currently have family members and friends who are without healthcare, some for years. So, I know what the effect of not having healthcare can have on people. So saying “I don’t understand” is just so much bullshit. What I do understand is that the solution you’re all cheering sucks. IT WILL FAIL WITHIN A GENERATION.
———-
Do you know the difference between the SS and ACA legislation. SS is designed from the ground up as inclusive, they made changes to exclude African Americans. ACA is designed from the ground up as exclusive (corporate, medicare, VA, etc are excluded), you all are hoping they can make changes to include all. It is much easier to remove language from legislation than it is to add language to legislation. Particularly when that language is seen as discriminatory.
———
We let a good crisis go to waste.
Baud
@Mnemosyne:
The last straw for me at GOS was the cheering in 2010 that so many Blue Dogs lost the election.
Cervantes
@Mnemosyne:
Thanks. I don’t look at things that way but I do appreciate the translation.
Mnemosyne
@Loviatar:
Er, no. Read the link I provided. SS was designed to exclude African-Americans, and was only fixed with later legislation. That whole “adding” thing you’re sneering at? That’s how they fixed SS.
So have you advised your family members without healthcare to forego it because Obamacare sucks so much? Are you willing and able to finance their diabetes care or cancer treatment out of your own pocket if they follow your advice?
And I notice that you say you “have been” without healthcare. Are you currently without health insurance?
ETA: The only person here claiming that Obamacare shouldn’t be improved with further legislation the way Social Security was is, well, you.
Gene108
@Loviatar:
Umm… You do realize gay marriage is not only becoming legal, but around half of all Americans are not bothered by the idea gays marry…
We are so far ahead of where we were wrt to Civil Rights it is not funny.
Howard Beale IV
@srv:
Thought that was Prince Albert in a can…..
Loviatar
@Cervantes:
Just to let you know I’m not trolling.
I believe we’ve made a major mistake with the ACA legislation. I believe we’ve missed an opportunity to create a piece of bedrock legislation that would have provided comfort and piece of mind for the citizens of our country. I’ve lived in Europe and Japan, I currently work for a multinational and when you speak with their citizens about healthcare and they profess no concerns about expenses or need, you begin to realize what we’re missing. We’ve created a solution that requires constant vigil, because of the complexity we given its opponents multiple avenues to defeat it or more likely fatally damage it in a way that makes it a pariah to most Americans (welfare).
Those who are happy today will drift off to other things, those who hate will stay vigilant (abortion). We missed an opportunity.
Howard Beale IV
@Gene108:
Problem is though is that GOP political stupidity and those who vote for them seems to be on a logarithmic curve destined to drive out and destroy all of the positive changes of the last 70 years.
Loviatar
@Gene108:
Tell that to the black men being shot down in the streets.
Loviatar
@Mnemosyne:
Wrong. SS was designed to include all Americans. To gain the votes of some Southern Democrats language was added to exclude African Americans. So that, when the changes were made to include African Americans in the 50′ and 60s it was fairly simple to write legislation targeting the offensive language.
The Decision to Exclude Agricultural and Domestic Workers from the 1935 Social Security Act
———
Yes, I’ve advised all my family members and friends to forgo using ACA.
Mike G
@Cervantes:
This. Australia’s immigration policy was officially racist until 1972. Obliterating this was a big step toward the cosmopolitan country it is today.
Free university education had a big impact on an entire generation, taking the universities from clubby extensions of the British-style private schools, to much greater accessibility. The “free” part was being eroded by the time I was of age, and is gone now.
Imagine a time when politicians could accomplish a sweeping slate of great things for regular people, not just run sly scams to benefit corporations and the rich.
A giant of Australian politics, Whitlam cast a big shadow decades after losing office. Tony Abbott is a mean little midget by comparison.
Loviatar
@Gene108:
Initially, I didn’t respond to this part of your comment because I couldn’t articulate why; then it it hit me, Loving v. Virginia.
While the African American and LGBT experiences in the US are similar there is a key and major difference.
– Anti-gay marriage laws are about bigotry, stupid ignorant bigotry. I see you as human, just not as good as a human as I.
– Anti-miscegenation laws were about racism. I don’t see you as human.
Civil Rights are about seeing and treating me as a human regardless of my skin color. Can you tell me after Ferguson that this is true.
Kyle
@AussieJim:
I wish we had a parliamentary system. In addition to providing occasional entertainment, it ensures that political leaders are at least intelligent and articulate enough to survive and thrive in an atmosphere of intense debate, and are accustomed to being challenged rather than treated like a princeling. A mumbling empty-slogan moron like GW Bush would never make it off the backbench.
Mnemosyne
@Loviatar:
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? From your very own link:
Title II was specifically written to exclude specific groups of workers. Further legislation had to be passed in order to include those groups of workers. How is this “targeting offensive language”? There was no offensive language in the first place. It had to do with which types of employees were eligible.
All health insurance — including employer-based — is regulated by PPACA. So you have yourself refused your employer’s health insurance and have advised all of your family members who receive employer health benefits to also refuse, right?
Medicaid and Medicare are both regulated by PPACA, so you have advised all of your family members to turn down Medicaid and Medicare benefits, right? Gotta make sure that the stink of PPACA doesn’t touch them in any way at all in order to remain pure.
Loviatar
OT
Great article by Bruce Bartlett.
Obama Is a Republican
He’s the heir to Richard Nixon, not Saul Alinsky.
I’d love to see this get a thread of its own.
Mnemosyne
@Loviatar:
So here’s a question for you: my (step)brother was just diagnosed with lung cancer at age 50, stage IIIB. What is your suggestion for how to pay for the necessary chemotherapy and radiation treatment without insurance? Or should he just crawl into a corner and die without treatment rather than take the PPACA’s dirty money so you can feel as self-righteous as possible?
Cervantes
@Loviatar:
Not sure what that term means — it’s often applied just to silence wayward voices — which is why I don’t use it.
For what it’s worth I found your comments useful as discourse. I may or may not agree with you — but so what?
Loviatar
@Mnemosyne:
First, my condolences to you family. Hopefully he will recover.
Your stepbrother’s circumstances does not change the fact that we have a shitty system of providing healthcare. Whether its the use of a private insurer, ACA, VA, Medicare or Medicaid the system in place right now is not for the benefit of the patient it is to benefit the insurance entity. And ACA perpetuates that system. While your family is concentrating right now on the health of your stepbrother the insurance entity is concentrating how much they can limit their exposure. Why is their someone dedicated to reducing their cost between your stepbrother and his doctor, why is that entity allowed to decide the course of treatment? This is the current state of affairs that ACA perpetuates.
I know it is a difficult thing to consider while you’re in the middle of it and I know any incremental change seems like a godsend over what was there previously, but whats changed. You still have this entity whose business model is designed on lowering their cost between your stepbrother and his doctor.
Universal healthcare, let the doctors and the patients decide.
Gene108
@Loviatar
I believe things are getting better. Compare the response from Ferguson versus the LA riots 22 years ago, after the Rodney King video.
Not only are a lot of white people waking up to what white privilege means, there has been a better understanding of the subtle and not so subtle ways racism exists in our post- Jim Crow society.
There are scant few other countries where immigrants like George Soros can succeed or have overcome their racist pasts enough to elect a mimority member to lead them.
Also, the point of any form of bigotry is to make the other group as less than human. Whether there are miscegenation laws (and the associated one-drop rule laws) or anti-gay marriage laws, the rights of people are reserved for you and yours and not them.
Gene108
@Loviatar:
Why? Bartlett’s trolling.
Obama is no more a Republican than GWB is a Democrat for expanding the Department of Education, Medicare and cracking down on Wall Steeet malfeasance by signing and enforcing Sarbanes-Oxley.
Mnemosyne
@Loviatar:
You mean other than the fact that my brother was able to afford to buy insurance and had it in place so he was able to be treated once he was diagnosed?
Gee, other than those tiny little issues of being able to access healthcare when he needed it and not having the treatment cost completely bankrupt him and not being dropped by his insurance company for getting cancer, I guess nothing changed at all. I mean, all of the above are tiny procedural issues that don’t actually affect people in real life, right?
Loviatar
@Mnemosyne:
Your brother will only get slightly better care than he would have gotten if he walked uninsured into the emergency room. He and his doctor still can’t make the final decisions regarding his treatments. So he will only pauper himself instead of bankrupting himself.
Again, Why is their an entity dedicated to lowering costs for personal profitability between your brother and his doctor? Are they their to decide upon the best treatment for your brother based upon life expectancy, quality of life or whats best for their bottom line?
El Caganer
@Kyle: Yeah, but a parliament full of Louie Gohmerts? I dunno…..
El Caganer
Every time ACA come up, it’s pronounced a success or failure. Don’t we really need at least a few years more worth of data to see if it’s one or the other or neither? I don’t think the entire legislation has completely taken effect, has it? And it’s a big, complex work. No matter what my thoughts are on ACA, I wouldn’t feel very confident in arguing for them without a whole lot more info. (And yes I do realize it’s the intertubes, where everybody is free to loudly announce their opinion whether that opinion is grounded in reality or not.)
Loviatar
Its funny, I may have given the impression that I don’t appreciate the benefits of the ACA over what was previously there, believe me I do. What I don’t do is over appreciate a shit sandwich, we previously had a vomit mixed with shit sandwich, now we only have a shit sandwich. I guess thats an improvement.
I work in a corporate environment, I’ve sat in meetings with very highly payed intelligent people whose sole focus was denying you the benefits you were entitled to under contract. At no time did we discuss your quality of life. Our discussions were on cutting costs, your benefits are a cost, which we looked to cut them in any way possible. Lucky for me and my soul I only work in the high end electronics field.
We need to get corporations out of the healthcare benefits business, they can not be trusted to make the right decisions. They will always make the decision that is best for themselves. ACA perpetuates that business model.
CarolDuhart2
@Loviatar: I was one of those uninsured patients for years after Medicaid was denied to single childless adults. I’m alive today because I took a Federal job that had benefits. If I worked in the private sector, I would have had nothing even if I had a company that offered it, because of my pre-existing condition.
Now, thanks to Obama, I can’t be denied anywhere, and this year, I also got some Medicaid. Obamacare is closing that hole too.
Fat chance of getting corporations out of medical care completely. Perhaps we will get single payer at the low-end, end of life and other parts-but middle class quality health care will remain corporate if for no other reason than to assure better-off Americans that their hospital will be clean and efficient.
Besides, who will hire all of those insurance people anyway?
Loviatar
@CarolDuhart2:
THIS THIS THIS THIS is why ACA is a mistake.
Why are you dependent on your job to stay alive? Is not healthcare a right. Why is it a benefit of working? So right now your good health is the equivalent of free bagels in the breakroom.
Loviatar
@CarolDuhart2:
I never said get corporations out of medical insurance completely. There should always be the option for people who can and are willing to pay for additional benefits. Basic healthcare is a right, corporations should not have decision making capability over your rights.
Mnemosyne
@Loviatar:
And, man, you just can’t stand the thought that someone isn’t going to suffer enough to satisfy you, can you? Strangely enough, someone with four kids does, in fact, find the difference between paupering and bankruptcy significant enough to buy insurance. I’m sure that when your relatives lose their homes based on your advice, they’ll be really grateful that you encouraged them to go for full bankruptcy rather than the less morally beneficial paupering.
There’s one of those in every country that has health insurance. In Great Britain, it’s called NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence). Strangely, the British women who were just denied a new cancer drug because it’s too expensive don’t feel any more kindly towards it because it’s a public entity rather than a private one.
Universal healthcare doesn’t mean that you get any healthcare you want, any time you want. It’s rationed. The only difference is that it’s rationed based on demographics and overall effectiveness rather than on your personal ability to pay.
Mnemosyne
@Loviatar:
Because it kept Carol alive? Why do you want Carol to die for your own personal beliefs?
pseudonymous in nc
Australia is a conservative country where the conservative parties are the default parties of government, but whose history has been marked by moments of radical change done by non-conservatives.
Gough Whitlam’s legacy defines modern Australia from all sides. The current incumbents wish to see large parts of that dismantled. That is all you need to know.
Cervantes
@Mnemosyne:
That’s your interpretation? It’s pretty far-fetched.
The point was simply that a person’s access to health care — or to life itself — should not depend on his or her ability to find a sympathetic employer.
Is that a controversial idea?
Loviatar
@Mnemosyne:
When I was stationed out at Ft. Sill I remember you’d come out the gate (I think it was gate 2) and their be a line of shepherds (Liquor store, Strip bar, Pawn shop, and repeat) waiting to shear the trainees. The further away from the gate you got the better quality of liquor, women and pricing. Since the trainees couldn’t have cars they were pretty much limited to walking or the bus, so that tells you what they enjoyed. Still the bars were all packed every weekend.
I got to be real good friend with this Drill Sgt. He was real country, from Missouri, into all that hunting and fishing crap. We’d go out drinking and hitting the clubs and bars, lots of bowling, real cool guy, he showed this NYer a different perspective on life. Some of the smartest people I’ve ever met were Drill Instructors. They could control a whole platoon of 18, 19yr old testosterone laden boys just with just their voice or a look. By the end of Basic Training they could pretty much turn the platoon over to the squad leaders and let them police the other trainees. My friend told me, it was funny, the squad leaders were tougher on the other trainees than he could ever be on them.
I guess you train somebody up right you can get them to do just about any damm thing.
Mnemosyne
@Cervantes:
If you were to say that you nearly died in a car accident but were saved by your car’s airbag and the person you were speaking to went off on a rant about how airbags should have been made mandatory 20 years before they were, would you think they had missed the point of your story?
The problem here seems to be that people are talking about their lives being saved or not being forced into destitution because PPACA passed, but all Loviatar can say in response is that their life-saving care or lower hospital bill shouldn’t have happened because the perfect solution inside his head would have been better. If, you know, it actually existed.
For me, when you pit what actually happened against what you fantasize should have happened, reality wins every time. I don’t have a lot of patience for counter-factuals about what maybe kinda sorta shoulda happened with PPACA if the world was perfect. Lacking a T.A.R.D.I.S., I don’t see why someone’s fantasies about what could have happened should trump the benefits that have actually occurred.
Loviatar
@Cervantes:
I’ve pretty much given up on trying to have a rational discussion on this subject. I’ve been accused of advocating for the death/bankruptcy of the unemployed and poor. I’ve been accused of racism, bigotry, sexism. I’ve been called a fool, naive, not practical, unrealistic. Finally, I guess I’m just not pragmatic. It usually gets real bad when there’s a personal story about how ACA saved a family member from death and/or bankruptcy.
Let me be clear, ACA is not a failure, in fact its a great success. However, ACA is a mistake. We’ve locked additional generations into a system that is expensive, inefficient and is morally and ethically unfair. And the worst thing is because it is slightly better than the previous horrible system we have people who should know better singing its praises and defending it to the death.
We let a good crisis go to waste.
Mnemosyne
@Loviatar:
You should probably actually, you know, read the legislation sometime. For-profit health insurance is going to be gone within the next two decades, because PPACA squeezes it down year by year. In the end, we’ll have a system similar to Germany’s (where the majority of the population is covered by, yes, that evil employer-based insurance) or Switzerland’s (where all of the insurance is sold by — gasp! — heavily regulated private insurance companies).
You seem to think that every country with universal healthcare has an NHS-like system when the vast majority of them don’t. Every country’s system is different, but they all managed to get to one that works for them and is fair for most people. And all of them took about 20 or 30 years of evolution and refinement to get there once they decided that universal healthcare was a good idea — look up how long it took Canada to get there. Most healthcare analysts think that South Korea went from a for-profit system to universal healthcare at lightning speed, and it took them 15 years to do it.
Your expectations are unrealistic, and you have no sense of history.
CarolDuhart2
@Cervantes: Previous to the ACA, that was the situation for millions. If you got the right insurer/work situation you got covered. If you didn’t have pre-existing conditions defined by the insurer. The ACA has ended that. I can go anywhere now and get some kind of coverage whether or not my employer offers it, and regardless of what conditions I have.
I don’t care what purists say. I’m glad Obama took the hits and got us expanded healthcare, and if it’s corporate, so be it.
Cervantes
@CarolDuhart2: I’m glad you have better insurance coverage than you used to. That is real and it does matter.
Is the improvement sustainable? Will more radical change become necessary? We shall see.
Loviatar
@CarolDuhart2:
Wrong. You can get insurance if you can afford it or your you’re back to some type of government insurance (Medicare, Medicaid or emergency room). As I said a lot of good people have gotten snowed by a very bad program that only slightly improves the system. Yes, you can no longer be denied coverage because of a preexisting condition, however your treatment is still being decided upon by an entity whose main purpose is to lower their cost to your detriment. And as far as affordability is concerned; again as I said earlier, losing most of your money instead of all is only a minor difference. Being a pauper is not much different from being bankrupt.
———
What hits did President Obama take for healthcare? Please explain to me what FUCKING hits did he take? Is he still not president? Did he still not get reelected? Did he still not bail out Wall Street? Did he still not cover up for the Bush era torturers? Are we still not invading another middle eastern country? I get so frustrated when I hear or see comments that President Obama took hits for healthcare. No he didn’t, the same assholes who hate him for ACA would have hated him for something else. The same assholes who voted 50+ times against ACA would have voted 50+ times against some other of his policies.
President Obama took hits because he is:
1.) BLACK
2.) BLACK
3.) BLACK
4.) BLACK
5.) A Democrat
———
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby
I guess if it’s corporate so be it.
Cervantes
@Loviatar:
If people’s lives are somewhat improved, they would know — and if they would like others to know who is responsible and who stood in the way, that is a good thing.
With the politicians we have in power, and with their hold on power funded the way it is, we were never going to get to a truly affordable, efficient, or fair system in one fell swoop. Sometimes incremental improvements (in people’s lives, remember) really are better than no improvements — especially if there is no other way forward in the short term. When voters see that change has led to improvement and not disaster — if fear is defanged — then additional change is only more likely.
Could the Administration have managed things differently? Sure, numerous strategies and tactics were not even considered. Could the actual, practical result have been better? Perhaps, yes, but it’s not exactly a foregone conclusion.
I know what you mean on a systemic level, but you can’t ignore human scale: people’s lives have improved.
No, it’s not enough. Elect a better Congress and you will get better legislation. Pick one House or Senate seat and do what you can in the days that remain. And then do it again next time, and the next time, and the next time.
Not that I’m telling you anything you don’t already know.
Cervantes
@Loviatar:
I’m not sure about #4 but otherwise I think you have it right.
Cervantes
@Mnemosyne:
In your scenario, the fact that your individual life was saved by an airbag is the most important thing in the world. It is, as you say, “the point of your story.”
Objectively, however, there may well be a more important consideration: many lives were lost because airbags were not required earlier. And worse, if you ask how your elected representatives were convinced not to require airbags earlier, the story may get pretty ugly, pretty quickly.
People who are upset about those many lives being lost do have a point, regardless of the personal celebration you (understandably) proclaim for yourself.
Loviatar
Let me expand upon this, right now I’m dealing with my dad’s medical appointments. No matter what the procedure or test, no matter what the need or justification by his medical doctors nothing is done without approval from his insurance company. Additionally, I’ve noticed that his doctors’ test/treatment recommendations are increasingly based upon his insurance, not whats best for him. I’ve seen them discuss having him take a test, walk to the front to talk to the billing clerk and come back and change the test. I’ve seen them prescribe a treatment and then change it based upon how close in time it was to the billing cycle of a previous treatment.
Why is this entity making healthcare decisions for my dad?
Cervantes
@Loviatar:
Because it has paid for the privilege.
I agree with you: it’s disgraceful.
Loviatar
@Cervantes:
I know. It may not seem so in my writings, but I know. I do understand that millions have seen their lives improve, millions now have access to healthcare, which is an unequivocal good thing.
Loviatar
@Cervantes:
This is where I think you and I have a disagreement. My belief is that we missed our once in a generation opportunity.
Cervantes
@Loviatar: You may well be right. It’s difficult to know. To me the question is: what is the next step?
Loviatar
@Cervantes:
Wait for the next systematic crisis.
In the mean time practice being ruthless. If that means you’re called a ‘purity troll” or an “emo-prog” so be it. From where I stand those names are much better than being call pragmatic.
Cervantes
@Amir Khalid:
As I recall the Philippines, too, had designs on parts of Borneo bordering the Sulu Sea.
And do you recall what the Indonesian attitude was towards Brunei? The Brits were never going to abandon it as fully or as quickly as anyone else would have liked.
Dylan
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/23/gough-whitlam-1975-coup-ended-australian-independence
Whitlam achieved so much in three years, but what is more alarming is the way he was unseated at he behest of the USA and the UK for what he’d done.
“On 10 November 1975, Whitlam was shown a top-secret telex message sourced to Theodore Shackley, the notorious head of the CIA’s East Asia division, who had helped run the coup against Salvador Allende in Chile two years earlier.
Shackley’s message was read to Whitlam. It said that the prime minister of Australia was a security risk in his own country. The day before, Kerr had visited the headquarters of the Defence Signals Directorate, Australia’s NSA, where he was briefed on the “security crisis”.”