Associated Press
Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) suffered a major stroke nearly a year ago, which kept the senator away from Capitol Hill during a difficult rehabilitation process. Fortunately, Kirk worked hard, received excellent care, and today, he'll climb the Capitol steps with his colleagues to mark the beginning of the 113th Congress. The senator has shown an enormous amount of heart and courage, and he's to be congratulated for how far he's come over the last year.
I'm sure he'll receive a warm welcome from the chamber today, and there's no doubt he'll have earned it.
That said, as Kirk reenters public life, he's beginning to give interviews again, and there's something he told the Chicago Sun-Times yesterday that stood out for me.
[Kirk] has a new perspective on the Illinois Medicaid program. "I will look much more carefully at the Illinois Medicaid program to see how my fellow citizens are being cared for who have no income and if they suffer from a stroke," Kirk said.
He said in general a person on Medicaid would be allowed 11 rehab visits in Illinois. "Had I been limited to that I would have had no chance to recover like I did. So unlike before suffering the stroke, I'm much more focused on Medicaid and what my fellow citizens face."
Obviously, it's hard to find silver linings to a health crisis as serious as Kirk's, but if he's prepared to look anew at Medicaid policy, now with a more sympathetic eye, I'm glad. As Harold Pollack explained, "The simple truth in these comments commands respect. Kirk required aggressive rehabilitation services at one of America's finest facilities for patients recovering from stroke. Such a profound physical ordeal -- and one's accompanying sense of profound privilege in securing more help than so many other people routinely receive -- this changes a person."
But there's a larger context to keep in mind.
Given his party's desire to cut Medicaid, the senator is likely to bring a critical, first-hand perspective that should help influence the debate. Kirk will be able to offer insights his colleagues need to be aware of.
I do wish, however, that we might see similarly changed perspectives without the need for direct personal relevance. Many policymakers are skeptical about federal disaster relief until it's their community that sees devastation. They have no interest in gay rights until they learn someone close to them is gay. And they're unsure of the value of Medicaid until they see its worth up close.
Perhaps the key to social progress is more life experiences?
Leave a Comment:
I'm happy he got the best medical care available...and we paid for it...now, if only my wife can get the same...oops, we are not of the upper class...we must settle for second or third best...takers remorse.....
My empathy for your spouse , and may find the way to care for her .
Yes, my heart goes out to you and your wife, too. Far too many in this country have either no or very limited access to health care, and the people who do have it think that's no big deal. [big sigh]
I have one friend whose adult son is quite mentally and physically disabled but, even so, manages to be gainfully employed at a menial job. He requires government assistance to get ongoing medical care, without which he would likely die. My friend, the father, rails at the government for making the process for getting the assistance so convoluted and somehow believes it would be smoother and more reliable under GOP administration. Huh???
I have come to believe that single-payer coverage, with an option to buy luxury coverage if you have the means, is the most reasonable method of meting out medical resources. The current system is outrageously unfair, and people who defend it should be ashamed.
Did the good Republican Senator happen to mention that he built the health care facilities that made his recovery possible all by himself?
snark
May he be the voice of reason in a party of fools. They don't seem to have an ounce of empathy until they are struck by adversity themselves.
to quote ben franklin: experience keeps a dear school, but a fool will learn in no other.
one should not have to stick his hand into a lion's mouth to accept that it bites.
Remember how they wheeled in Bob Dole before the vote on the UN Treaty - that vote didn't turn out the empathy they thought it would either.....It's good that Mr. Kirk has a new appreciation for and understanding of how his privileged status helped him and will try to "look again" at how the programs works, but unfortunately maybe more of his colleagues need some similar experiences before they wake up.
For those believing in a "Supreme Being", now would be a good time for them to petition it to deliver a few more strokes to recalcitrant members of Congress.
Does that count as a deprecatory prayer when you know it's a good thing in the long run?
william - thanks for the laughs..
If he bucks the Maginot Norquist Koch party line he will find a primary threat materializing in 3 2 1 ...
He barely won the election in 2010 and a Tea Party candidate will be a sure bet to lose in Illinois. If Kirk can stay moderate he will have a better chance of being reelected. But if he turns far right, he will likely lose to the Dem.
It is really a shame that something as serious a medical care for those who are financially challenged doesn't have more support from all of the American people.
Back in the eighties it was lampooned with heartfelt appeals against Land Sharks (Elasmobranchii faux) and their horrifying attacks on celebrities .
Insulated by fundraisers, lobbyists, that core group of like-minded constituents, it must be hard for our political decision-makers to get out and experience the salt of the earth, but that is just what they need!
Otherwise, Hurricane Sandy victims might suffer as say a Speaker of the House refuses to bring to a vote the needed relief legislation simply because he cannot relate to those who've actually lost so much in such a fraction of a moment!
Yes, I've often said rich people need to get out more and actually see what they are missing, while they've stymied themselves with their own opulence!
Kudos to the dear Senator from Illinois! -Kevo
Prior to becoming one of the Senators for the state, Kirk was somewhat of a moderate. After becoming Senator, he made a HARD right turn and may as well have become a member of the tea party.
I guess walking in someone else's moccasins made him see things a little differently.
BUT...can u really believe anything a repug SAYS??? watch how he votes.
I guess Mitt Romney would say if you had more than 11 rehab visits you'd slip into that 47 percent of moochers. Members of congress have no idea how good a deal they have with healthcare and benefits - they don't have to worry about getting sick without insurance - it's not fun - I've been there.
When I was diagnosed with potential prostate cancer while having no insurance, I seriously considered just shooting myself and ending the problem. Fortunately a doctor at the free medical clinic I went to had worked for the VA and told me that as a veteran I could get in there. Thank God for the VA! I'd likely be dead without it, instead of getting treatment as good as what the Senator got. Rather than "Medicare for All" I propose "VA care for all." I love my bureaucrat-run, government-funded health care.
Glad to know that you're better TC - but pay attention cause all of the "Veterans" aren't even getting that treatment - more like the shaft in some cases....
I wonder what our congresscritters would think if they had to do their job for minimum wage? If it's good enough for the goose...
There is a worry if you make the official representation unattractive , it will attract an unsavory sort of character to the job .
Oh No !
Sometimes, it requires personal experience for a person to accept truth. I know that my experience during this past summer requiring 38 days in the hospital and a surgery to correct (and another one sometime next year to fully correct) caused me to rethink a great deal of issues from employment to family to medicine. While my situation was not as long-term impactful as Senator Kirk's stroke, it was still a learning process.
My Ph.D. advisor always used to tell me to see if I could successfully generalize a narrow, particular result. (Thanks, Jerry - that advice has served me well, even if I never went beyond my Ph.D. dissertation as a research mathematician.)
It seems to me that there is what you might call a generalization gap between the two parties.
Republicans like Mark Kirk, or George Will, or whoever, are sympathetic to someone who experiences the exact same problem that they've encountered, and are open to the idea of government help for people encountering that specific problem.
Democrats, on the other hand, are more open to the notion that some other problem that they haven't personally experienced is analogous to one they have personally encountered. We lefties can see that our burdens and those of others are similar, even when they're not the same.
I believe the word for this is compassion. We can mentally put ourselves in someone else's situation, even if it's not one we've been in, based on the difficulties we have experienced, whatever they may be.
So call it a generalization gap, call it a compassion gap, call it whatever. There's no question that liberals and conservatives see the world very differently, and part of that is the ability, or inability, to identify with people facing difficulties you haven't personally experienced.
A while back there was a British study showing Racists tend to be conservative.
Racists tend to be racist due to a lack empathy.
A requirement for empathy is the mental capacity (AKA: Intellect) to imagine oneself in another persons situation.
So, racists tend to be conservative because they lack the mental prowess to imagine themselves in others situation.
But wait, theres more!!
To assimilate new information takes mental effort. When that new data contradicts a previously held belief the mental effort required to assimilate the new data increases dramatically.
As this applies to Kirk, he has already accepted a new reality that "health care" doesn't adequately cover those who have suffered a stroke, lets see if Kirk has the empathy to see how health care falls short throughout the system.
.
The obvious thing here is about walking a mile in another mans shoes, But that said He is from IL and had he been a Tea Party guy from GA I might be more impressed.
Remember that those are the people who don't just want to limit you to 11 rehab visits they want you to die.
Times like this always takes me back to Dickens:
Yes and Sarah Palin is an advocate for children with disabilities because she has one. Blessed are the people who have empathy for others without having to experience that specific hardship for themselves. Does it have to affect an individual personally before he can imagine what it must be like for someone else?
Obviously, Republicans do have to experience that hardship to have empathy. It is very sad. It is also what makes them conservatives. Their brains are wired differently.
Exactly right, Karen. Google right wing authoritarian personality type, and much becomes if not understandable, at least comprehensible. Yes, their brains really are wired differently.
So, to keep these guys from tearing into the safety net, they all need to be afflicted with something? Unbelievable! The lack of intergrity with these "christians" never ceases to amaze me.
Now, you have to hold this man's feet to the fire. Politicians enjoy the best of health care paid for by the taxpayer. Make them explain using this man as the example why this is the way it should be for everyone not just the elected few. Do not let thios opportunity slip through your fingers.
Imagine that each of them received, at random, the health care of one of their constituents. Do you think that they might be more "representative?"
Kirk was very outspoken against the ACA. It's time for a good reporter to ask a series of questions about that, with follow ups. There is an objective connection between having a stroke and having no insurance. The driving factor in strokes is hypertension, high blood pressure. More people going to the doctor means more people get life saving control for their hypertension. I was lucky, mine was found before I had a stroke, but I was hospitalized.
This story just supports my belief that Congress is overpaid. If the median income is around $50,000 per year, then Congress should only be paid a percentage above the median income in America. There would be no more Bush dynasties, Kennedy's, etc. Let's see how they would do on the income the majority of us try to survive on. And just a side note.... being a person who has dedicated my life to working with people with disabilities...Sarah Palin has shown very little support for her son with downs. She used him as a political tool, that's all.
So people who don't need money but are suckers for making policies which keep their substantial financial interests invisible , would have the means and the interests to seek this , and protect great wealth . Great wealth to become a part of public responsibility requires an egalitarian attitude , leastways from the wealthy , as counterintuitive a point as I can remember .
Making the elected officials job any less financially attractive will insure that only self funded adventurers will be attracted .
congress isn't overpaid, they are underworked.
FRP - That makes sense, but to what extent is this already true, though? This may be just an unjustified generalization (I have no idea, really), but it seems to me that a large number of Sens and Reps are already wealthy when they run.
I think it is more the expense of running a campaign that keeps ordinary folks from doing it. That is where we need more reform.
If you want to study this ridiculous pay idea, you should look at the history of the English Parliament. Pay until the late 19th Century was nonexistant, on the grounds that a "gentleman" did his duty without recourse to pay. Of course, all the Members of Parliament had independent income (mostly from inheritance and investment), with the result that all legislation favored the upper classes, unless there was enough rioting in the streets to seriously threaten that, at which point crumbs would be tossed in the form of the Reform Act of 1832, Disraeli's "Tory Democracy," etc. It was not until actual workingmen and "bourgeois professionals" got into Parliament and forced through pay for service that the Tory and Liberal twits were finally outnumbered sufficiently to bring England kicking and screaming into the 20th Century and then on to the great reforms following the war.
Gosh maybe we should re-visit TERM LIMITS. The Founders did not INTEND for Congress to be a career. They THOUGHT if the House (especially) was made up of ACTUAL PEOPLE THAT WORK that they would bring their life experiences, needs and wants to the Congress.
They also didn't intend for it to be a full-time job.
If you knew what you were talking about, term limits would be the last thing you would favor. Term limits got sold to the idiotocracy here in California 20 years ago, with the result that the legislature is now "run" by people who haven't been there long enough to learn where the bathrooms are, let alone how to legislate, thus making them completely dependent on the real government of Sacramento, the J Street Lobbyists. When we had guys like Willie Brown and Jesse Unruh, who had been there long enough to have some power, things got done t hat were good for the State and its people.
trainerbarry
Please site the section and clause in Article 1 of the Constitution that states being a member of Congress is not a full time job. Because I can't find it and I've been studying the Constitution for over 20 years. If a member of Congress is doing her or his job right it should be a full time job.
I agree with TC term limits are not a good thing. It's the job a member of government does that should decide whether or not he or she keeps her or his job.
This is why Congress should have health coverage no better than what we give the poorest people in the country. If they WANT better coverage, they have to give that same basic coverage to all citizens. If they want better coverage on top of that enhanced minimum, they can pay the premiums themselves.
I doubt he'll get primaried out from the right. Joe Walsh notwithstanding, Illinois typically doesn't elect or tolerate wing nuts. Also, the path to that Senate seat runs right up to IL Attorney General Lisa Madigan's door (now that her girls are toddlers) and her powerful father, IL House Speaker Mike. (Unless she of course decides she wants to be Governor.)
jon stewart points it out all the time, but why does some issue have to be truly personal (health care, abortion, immigration, gay marriage, etc) before a GOP pol actually cares about it?
that's a lack of empathy bordering on the pathological
This country is guided by Adam Smith's invisible hand, the profit motive, which is taken out of context most of the time. But, in this country it seems that most people operate on the bottom line or pragmatism. If it is profitable do it, it will probably get done. if not probably not. we should have universal health care. We need a wellness care plan, where doctors are paid to help keep us healthy instead of treating symptoms. There could be a plan where doctors are paid a set amount, but could make more by keeping more people healthy. It's true that we should be more empathetic and have more compassion. Unfortunately many people want to have it all while depriving others. I think that is why many keep amassing more than they can ever spend in a lifetime. The perception of scarcity is man kinds greatest problem, there are plenty of resources, enough for everyone, it's just a matter of distribution. There are too many people profiting at the expense of others.
"we should have universal health care. We need a wellness care plan, where doctors are paid to help keep us healthy instead of treating symptoms. There could be a plan where doctors are paid a set amount, but could make more by keeping more people healthy."
See health care in Great Britian - it is exactly that
Let's not forget that the one Republican opposed to torture (McCain) is the only one ever subjected to it.
And yet he routinely votes to protect the torturers.
This is an excellent example of what I think is the biggest failing of decent people who are conservatives: a deficiency of moral imagination, or what we might call empathy. Once they identify with a person, they can treat them compassionately. But they have greater than average difficulty in identifying with those unlike themselves. This is a universal human challenge of course, but some people are better at facing it than others. America's conservatives are poor at it.
In the probably forlorn hope of avoid a mindless charge by someone of ideological bias - this same issue is likely at least partly why more homogeneous and also wealthy societies like Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland, can have a wider array of government services for all.
I'm thinking unemployment would be beneficial to a lot of lawmakers.
Yet another example of a right-winger who supports a program or position only after they experience it: Dick Cheney with Gay rights, Rush Limbaugh with treating addiction like a medical problem instead of a crime, the list goes on and on.
Life experiences will impact and change everyone, no matter their political views. To suggest that only Libs/Dems are caring and compassionate is absurd.
L&P: Jonathan did not suggest what you say he did. He only pointed out the truth about alot of conservative public figures. The fact that you tried to suggest otherwise points to your being uncomfortable with the truth Jonathan stated. Just sayin...