On "Fox News Sunday" yesterday, host Chris Wallace interviewed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and asked a question that too often goes overlooked: "One of the keys to 'Obamacare' is that it will extend insurance access to 30 million people who are now uninsured. In your replacement, how would you provide universal coverage?"
Notice McConnell's reluctance to answer the question. Wallace had to ask three times about the tens of millions of Americans who have no health coverage, before the Republican senator said what he actually believes: "That's not the issue."
When Wallace followed by asking, "You don't think the 30 million people that are uninsured is an issue?" McConnell changed the subject.
The importance of this cannot be overstated. There are 30 million Americans who can't afford to see a doctor. They are one serious illness away from bankruptcy. Tens of thousands of Americans die every year because they have no insurance. The United States is the only industrialized democracy on the planet that allows this to happen to its own citizens.
And the Republican solution to this problem is to conclude that it is not a problem in need of solution. The GOP policy to help these millions of Americans is ... literally nothing. They are, in Mitch McConnell's words, "not the issue."
There's no mystery as to the GOP's motivations. The right sees health care as a privilege -- if tens of millions Americans can't afford to see a doctor, well, they simply haven't earned it.
Indeed, McConnell's choice of words was startling, but he only made explicit what we already knew. Though it's been long forgotten, House Republicans in 2009 unveiled a rival health care reform plan to ostensibly compete against the Democratic proposal. What did the GOP policy do to expand access to those without insurance? Nothing; it ignored them.
Likewise, this year, Mitt Romney's Republican presidential campaign has offered no solutions whatsoever to help those without access to basic medical care.
As we discussed last Wednesday, Democrats believe Americans must have the ability to seek basic medical care, and Republicans believe the opposite. As Jon Chait explained the day before the Supreme Court's ruling, it's a moral question that the parties answer differently.
Several reporters have recently filed dispatches showing in human terms what sort of conditions we would be perpetuating in the event that five Republican Supreme Court Justices, or a potential Republican-run government next year, partially or completely nullify the Affordable Care Act. A man will watch the tumor in his leg grow to the size of a melon, and his wife will sew special pants to fit the growing bulge, because he has no insurance. A woman will hobble around for four years on an untreated broken ankle she can’t have repaired. People will line up in their cars and spend the night in a parking lot queuing for a rare free health clinic.
Maybe these stories sound like cheap emotional manipulation. They are actually a clarifying tool to cut through the rhetorical fog surrounding the health-care debate and define the question in the most precise terms.
Quite right. In precise terms, though both major American political parties accept the basic premise of the free-enterprise system -- those with more wealth will, as Chait put it, "enjoy vastly greater comforts and pleasures than others" -- Democrats and Republicans differ on what the consequences should be for those with less.
"What is being disputed is whether the punishments to the losers in the market system should include, in addition to these other things, a denial of access to non-emergency medical treatment. The Republican position is that it should."
This is obviously, painfully, demonstrably true, though it doesn't come up often in polite conversation.
There are basic American institutions that enjoy broad political support. Everyone in the country, regardless of wealth, is entitled to go to a public school. We can go to public libraries. If there's an emergency, we can call the police and/or the fire department. When we're older, we can count on Medicare and Social Security. Up until very recently -- right up until the radicalization of the Republican Party -- these basic observations were uncontroversial elements of American society. They enjoyed the status of consensus.
But if we want to see a doctor, the consensus disappears. Democrats believe you're entitled to seek non-emergency medical care, just as you're entitled to send your kid to school or ask the fire department to put out a fire. Republicans believe the ability to see a doctor is a luxury. They are, as Chait noted, "the only mainstream political party in the advanced world" to believe it's acceptable to deny basic medical care to citizens based on their wealth.
And Mitch McConnell reminded the political world yesterday that his party has no intention of changing any time soon.
Leave a Comment:
Tens of millions of Americans will vote Republican this year because they're ONLY hearing Sean, Rush, Mitch and Bill discuss how horrible it is for those very same people who're currently not covered, to actually be covered.
Those tens of millions of people hate the Black man in the White House so much that they'll actually give up being covered just to remove him.
That's what unlimited funds given to the GOP has done to this country. If it's not stopped, you will witness the total destruction of this nation due to a few billionaires who can afford to purchase the a$$h0le of their choice.
How is it possible for McConnell to say that "America has the best health care in the world"?
And why is paying taxes so horrifying to the GOP? Out taxes in Canada pay for our Health Care. What's wrong with that?
I can "afford" my medical insurance (though it is over 25% of my monthly pension). But by sending all of that money to Blue Cross, I cannot spend it purchasing things that would help the actual economy. Because of two pre-existing conditions (one genetic, one sun-related), I feel that I must keep my group insurance policy as I retire. Now, I will wait 5 long years until Medicare is available. I am very upset at DEMs for dropping the single-payer option but know that the GOP hasn't got any better plan.
Just a note on your situation - The ACA should be able to give you more options when it fully goes into effect than what's been available in the past. In the five years you're waiting to qualify for Medicare, you should be able to purchase lower-cost insurance through an Exchange and get subsidies and cost-sharing to help with your premiums, for starters.
Just think, if they stopped paying subsidies to the oil companies it would pay for universal health care, social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, and unemployment for at least the next 200 years.
His comment "they are not the issue" while disgusting is very true. The issue for republicans is getting rid of the entire law and the black man who pushed for it. If 30 million people are hurt by their actions the republicans do not care, small price to pay to get rid of the evil black man who happens to be a duely elected president and who cares about others rather than just himself.
The Republican position was articulated clearly during the oral arguments on the ACA. The Solicitor General had said something to the effect that there was a responsibility or duty on the part of the government to assure medical care was available to all and Justice Scalia said something to the effect of "change your assumption." That is the Republican position.
Rachel, I'd love to see you do a whole show on this!
I keep wondering about the people in the states where Governors are turning everything down. Do you think maybe the uninsured people in THOSE states were looking forward to finally being able to go to the doctor?
I live in Illinois and am a senior and the Governor just cut almost all our Medicaid benefits. Right now I'm relatively healthy so it doesn't hurt too much. But I don't understand how a person can govern a state with people who are both rich AND poor and turn down something that would help the poor so much.
I would love love to see some investigative reporting on this issue in Illinois too. This is one of Rachael's favorite governors.
He makes me laugh! He says the Republicans won't have a 2700 page health care bill. That's so true! They can't even come up with one page. He can't answer the question because he can't even begin to outline a solution.
God forbid ANYONE even suggests there are budgetary constraints that must be complied with as we SPEND our kids' (and their kids') future work hours into oblivion. Liberals always focus on the Utopian, Machiavelli, ideological end result...with ZERO consideration for HOW to get there.
Maddow is no different than the "R" talking heads...pointing out how each other messed up or got it wrong. Neither side fixes ANY problems....Liberals TAX and spend, R's borrow and spend.
Yes, that works...kick it down the road again. Very good @!$%#s.
Rachael Maddow is a most fair and factual political reporter. The R talking heads are misrepresentation of the facts. If you are going for the truth Steve and Rachael are the standard. Rachael will always make a public correction if there is any doubt check out the archives.
Those on the right have no interest whatsoever in "fair" and/or "factual". All they care about is whatever will get them what they want, no matter who it hurts.
If water were so expensive that 10% of our population could not afford it, would we allow those people to die of thirst? Would we decide that the government is not to provide water to the poorest, but that we should rely on private philanthropy instead? Or should our entire society come together to provide the fundamental needs of human survival, as a group, together for all people?
If you believe that access to medical care is necessary for survival, and you are humane, you must work to provide that access to all people.
Those who argue that the poorest can go to a hospital and get free care have never tried that system out for themselves - it's a myth. There is no free healthcare in our country. Work with a poor person who has a medical condition and see for yourself what happens.
Regardless of whether you support or oppose the ACA, it does not provide healthcare to all our people. If you believe we have a moral obligation to ensure all people have access to the basic requirements for survival, then the work is not done.
The answer to your first question depends on who you mean by "we", decent people or those on the right.
The classic Liberal narrative: "You mean you would allow poor people to die in the street because they can't afford health care!?"
No moron. That has NEVER happened in this country. Ever. Not one time. Prior to 1913 we had NO taxes NOR any such programs and there were NEVER dead bodies lying in the streets. Stop using fear mongering and painting false hyped idiotic pictures.
How about this one...let's push old people off a cliff in a wheelchair. Yes that's exactly what conservatives want.
Utter morons.
God forbid ANYONE should even mutter fiscal and budgetary constraint. No sir...can't suggest that! You must hate poor people.
morons.
"That has NEVER happened in this country. Ever. Not one time."
It is happening right this very minute! Roughly 45,000 people a year die because they can't get access to medical care. Read the study. It happened even worse before Social Security gave retired people something to live on. Please read about the social conditions in the US in your fathers' times. Even Ayn Rand would have died a lot sooner without SS and Medicare.
Why do you think that veterans are adamant about improving the VA hospitals and getting access to treatment through them? Do you think that veterans were doing just fine before the VA hospitals came along?
People are dying in the streets, in tents, in RVs, and in substandard housing due to lack of adequate health care in appalling numbers daily. Open your eyes Amy, just ask an ER nurse. Step out of your suburban glass house and get involved. There are a number of contagious infectious diseases that could invade your bubble as well.
armyav8r, I'm sorry my comments made you so angry.
Uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts.
45,000 people die each year who would otherwise survive if they had health insurance.
People do not die in the street. They die in their homes because they cannot afford life-saving surgery or medicine, or because they were never able to receive preventive care. You may not known anyone in extreme poverty, but this does happen every day in our country, and it is not acceptable.
We must work together as a community to find a way for all people to have access to medical care when they need it.
Never apologize to someone who is malicious. They do not deserve it.
Maddow loves to highlight errors and flaws of the right. The "R" talking heads do exactly the same thing. Both categories point out valid flaws. Here is the difference:
> Conservatives believe the individual has responsibilities...Liberals believe individuals have rights...especially when someone else is paying for it.
> Conservatives believe food, shelter, employment, and yes healthcare are NOT rights. They never have been. Anywhere. Under ANY constitution in any country on earth. Get it straight. That does not mean we push old people off cliffs in wheel chairs moron...we (unlike you) do not look to SOMEONE ELSE to fix our problems for us. That, sir/ma'am, is a characteristic of a flagrant leech.
> Conservatives understand that two tribes, one hunter, one gatherer, trade spears and baskets and BOTH benefit...that is capitalism. Liberals stifle and bring the process to a grinding halt by forcing the hunter tribe to hire more gatherers and/or force the gatherer tribe to NOT exchange baskets for spears on Sunday because it offends the Muslim members.
> It takes zero skill to stand up in front of the U.S. population and promise free #$%^ with money you didn't earn. It takes a @!$%# load of balls and fight to tell the people what they NEED to hear rather than what they WANT to hear.
....Vote "D" or "R" doesn't matter. Same result. Same pandering process. Maddow simply points out errors and the "R" talking heads do exactly the same thing.
There are several major errors with your post. The first is that conservatives believe in individual responsibilities, especially for themselves. I can't think of any time that a conservative has taken responsibility for his/her own errors. The Shrub is a case in point. Trading Sammy Sosa was his biggest mistake???
Most constitutions around the world guarantee education, food and shelter. The countries don't always comply, but the rights are guaranteed nonetheless.
The only reason for a spear is to kill someone. No one trades a spear away. Like conservatives everywhere, they use spears to take what they want. They don't trade for them. Witness the way the oil industry has used the US military to give it access to Iraq's and Libya's oil fields.
As for the worn out blather about how the conservatives stand on their own two feet and don't take what belongs to others, I give you the financial industry that not too long ago engaged in massive fraud, the conservative obsession with coddling its heirs (if there were ever a group of leeches, it is the ones like the WalMart heirs, the Koch brothers, Betsy DeVos, Paris Hilton, the Romney kids and that whole group of layabouts living off the wealth of their parents), and the conservative fixation on privatizing profits and socializing risks. The latter goes back to personal responsibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems#Ranking
Clearly the best system in the world with that sweet sweet WHO ranking of 37 and the highest expenditure per capita of any country, anywhere.
Mitch McConnell and the GOP,as it now exists, are not legitimate legislators or representatives, they are operating and working against the best interests of this Nation and it's people. There is no doubt about their motives, they want to destroy everything that does not serve the 1% or corporate interests.In their view, everything and every one outside of the 1% and the corporate interests , exists to serve the same, it's Lord's and serfs, that is their vision of America. FACISM IS THEIR GOD, ABSOLUTELY! These degenerate criminals, the GOP AND Corporatists are succeeding in their efforts,and they are getting " rich" in the process. The American people need to wake up, get furious and vanquish these @!$%#ing traitors,ALL OF THEM, MUST BE DESTROYED, TOTALLY! THERE IS NO COEXISTING WITH THIS KIND OF THINKING AND THESE DEGENERATE @!$%#S. THEY MUST BE VANQUISHED, FROM THIS NATION AND FROM THIS PLANET, FOR IF WE DO NOT, THEY WILL MOST SURELY VANQUISH OUR NATION AND US! THIS IS WAR FOLKS, RIGHT HERE IN THE USA, IT'S TIME TO GET PRO-ACTIVE, GET TO WORK AND GET RID OF THESE NO-GOOD MUTHER@!$%#ERS ONCE AND FOR ALL. GET RID OF THEM, ALL OF THEM, NONE OF THEM GETS A PASS. LET'S @!$%# THE GOP, THE CORPORATISTS AND THEIR ENABLERS, THEY MUST BE DESTROYED, FOREVER! WE OWE THIS TO ALL OF HUMANITY AND ALL OUR PROGENY!
An excellent summary of what the "Replace" portion of the "Repeal and Replace" policy actually contains.
Tens of thousands of Americans die every year because they have no insurance. The United States is the only industrialized democracy on the planet that allows this to happen to its own citizens.
Wasn't one of the major reasons that we invaded Iraq and executed Saddam Hussein that he gassed some of "his own people?" If more Americans have died because Yertle is blocking health care reform than Iraqis that Saddam killed, what would be an appropriate response for Yertle? Could it be that he doesn't consider people who die from lack of insurance to be "his people" or even "Americans?"
Whoa, who woke up Chris Wallace? He might make a fine journalist one day...
They are a mean, uncaring bunch. I give McConnell credit for admitting he doesn't care about the poor. They can fend for themselves.
In every state where the matter of expanding Medicaid coverage is undecided, we MUST:
over and over and over again so they expand the Medicaid program.
I, LITERALLY, know about 8 people who have serious medical needs who aren't going to the doctor because of cost. Some even have what purports to be insurance, but is actually useless.One may well be slowly dying because of an untreated swollen mastoid that's impinging on the brain. Others have high blood pressure, serious vision problems that may be more than prescription glasses could help, pregnancies for which they pay hundreds of dollars for five years or more in order to meet their hospital bills. These people NEED the Medicaid expansion!
PLEASE write. It could make a great deal of difference to people in need.....as well as to Obama's electoral success, because writing shows that there's need and that we care about our fellow citizens.
We don't want a Western European healthcare system? You mean the kinds of systems where everyone has access to health care, it costs around 30-50% less than ours, and people live 5-10 years longer than we do on average, AND... they happiness quotient of those countries is much much higher than ours.
Nope. We wouldn't want that here.
This interview with Mitch by FOX news says it all. So what if you dont have access to affordable health care? I am one of those people who will not be able to obtain insurance without paying a huge premium due to pre-existing conditions..I AM SO ALL IN for Obamacare...Republicans havent done anything in decades on healthcare..They dont have to worry about it because they have lifetime pensions and health insurance the rest of us dont have.
The final solution to our health care problem in this country is simple. Put all the people that can't afford health care in the US millitary, send them off to the next bogus war this country decides we need to get into kills two birds with one stone. Or we could ramp back military spending, mind our own business around the world and use that money to rebuild America.