Oooo! I'm steppin' in it! (It's a lot to read...)
------------------------------------------------------------
"My apologies to those for whom this email is unwelcome. I'm assuming all of you are on Dad's email list already, but - if not...and if you'd like to not receive communications from me like this in the future - please don't hesitate to let me know.
Dad -
It IS wonderfully eloquent in its expression of the author's selfishness and racism.
Eloquence doesn't cover the fact that the message is essentially xenophobic; xenophobia stemming from an exaggerated national sense of entitlement ("We were here first. We're Americans. We deserve this...not you.").
Perhaps my source for the following scripture would only serve to underline the author's "frustration", i.e. - lack of compassion (it's translated into Spanish after all!), yet - regardless - I think this verse (and the cross-referenced verses) speaks to the public health insurance matter decidedly more eloquently, while leaving out the underlying greed and hatred: "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"
While I would argue there's no real need for further justification of a public health option (and to think Americans consider Europeans godless?!), I am aware that there are a multitude of arguments and rationalizations many would make to counter my assertion. Certainly, I would agree charity that is not coerced is much preferred over charity that is, however, in addition to the good that public health care would do, I believe that a public health insurance option would also serve to save all of us money. At this point, this author and those who think like her are not unlike lobbyists arguing for Ma Bell when the government was breaking the Telephone monopoly up. In a corporatocracy like I believe America has become, pharmaceutical companies and HMOs can name their price for their goods and services, and have! Admittedly, the high cost of education of doctors, other medical personnel and research technicians, equipment and facilities for medical care and pharmaceutical production and advancement does not make any healthcare option cheap. However, in a world dominated by Wal-Mart (I'm looking at you, Red States) and a firm belief in bulk-buying power, I cannot believe so few can see the advantages of such a system for healthcare insurance.
In my opinion, we're being asked, as a country, to face some very harsh realities and some of us are acting like toddlers on the playground, refusing to give up our swing.
I may not agree with everything the Obama administration is doing or everything that's in the Affordable Health Choices Act, but at least something is being done. Nothing is ever perfect the first time you do it, but in doing, you learn, and in learning, you refine, and in refining, you eventually achieve progress. This, to me, is the much preferred option (especially since there's a chance we might actually succeed!? Imagine!) over playing ostriches, hiding our heads in the sand to deny the change that's all around us.
Bottom line: This (healthcare/elder care) is going to be an even bigger problem then it already is very soon. We have to do something about it. Period. And whether they/we like it or not, the Millers and their ilk/us are already wrapped up far enough in it we had better start being a part of the solution if we want there to BE any solution.
Duane
P.S. - I must have missed the part in the healthcare reform bill that stipulated we all learn Spanish. Where was that part? And why would that be such a bad thing, exactly??
-d-
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:05 AM, David Roggendorff wrote:
This is an interesting letter that expresses so eloquently the frustration of these individuals towards the organizations originally embodied to help us.
This was sent to Mr. Rand who is the Executive Director of AARP
Dear Mr. Rand,
Recently you sent us a letter encouraging us to renew our lapsed membership in AARP by the requested date. I know it is not what you were looking for, but this is the most honest response I can give you. Our gap in coverage is merely a microscopic symptom of the real problem, a deepening lack of faith.
While we have proudly maintained our membership for several years and have long admired the AARP goals and principles, regrettably, we can no longer endorse it's abdication of our values. Your letter specifically stated that we can count on AARP to speak up for our rights, yet the voice we hear is not ours. Your offer of being kept up to date on important issues through DIVIDED WE FAIL presents neither an impartial view nor the one we have come to embrace. We do believe that when two parties agree all the time on everything presented to them, one is probably not necessary. But, when the opinions and long term goals are diametrically opposed, the divorce is imminent. This is the philosophy which spawned our 200 years of government.
Once upon a time, we looked forward to being part of the senior demographic. We also looked to AARP to provide certain benefits and give our voice a power we could not possibly hope to achieve on our own. AARP gave us a sense of belonging which we no longer enjoy. The Socialist politics practiced by the Obama administration and empowered by AARP serves only to raise the blood pressure my medical insurance strives to contain. Clearly a conflict of interest there!
We do not understand the AARP posture, feel greatly betrayed by the guiding forces whom we expected to map out our senior years and leave your ranks with a great sense of regret. We mitigate that disappointment with the relief of knowing that we are not contributing to the problem anymore by renewing our membership. There are numerous other organizations which offer discounts without threatening our way of life or offending our sensibilities.
This Presidential Administration scares the living daylights out of us. Not just for ourselves, but for our proud and bloodstained heritage,but even more importantly for our children and grandchildren. Washington has rendered Soylent Green a prophetic cautionary tale rather than a nonfiction scare tactic. I have never in my life endorsed any militant or radical groups, yet now I find myself listening to them. I don't have to agree with them to appreciate the fear which birthed their existence. Their borderline insanity presents little more than a balance to the voice of the Socialist mindset in power. Perhaps I became American by a great stroke of luck in some cosmic uterine lottery, but in my adulthood I CHOOSE to embrace it and nurture the freedoms it represents as well as the responsibilities it requires.
Your website generously offers us the opportunity to receive all communication in Spanish. ARE YOU KIDDING??? Someone has broken into our 'house', invaded our home without our invitation or consent. The President has insisted we keep the perpetrator in comfort and learn the perp language so we can communicate our reluctant welcome to them.
I DON'T choose to welcome them.
I DON'T choose to support them.
I DON'T choose to educate them.
I DON'T choose to medicate them, pay for their food or clothing.
American home invaders get arrested.
Please explain to me why foreign lawbreakers can enjoy privileges on American soil that Americans do not get?
Why do some immigrants have to play the game to be welcomed and others only have to break & enter to be welcomed?
We travel for a living. Walt hauls horses all over this great country, averaging over 10,000 miles a month when he is out there. He meets more people than a politician on caffeine overdose. Of all the many good folks he enjoyed on this last 10,000 miles, this trip yielded only ONE supporter of the current administration. One of us is out of touch with mainstream America. Since our poll is conducted without funding, I have more faith in it than one which is power driven.
We have decided to forward this to everyone on our mailing list, and will encourage them to do the same. With several hundred in my address book, I have every faith that the eventual exponential factor will make a credible statement to you.
I am disappointed as [expletive deleted].
I am scared as [expletive deleted].
I am MAD as [expletive deleted], and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!
Walt & Cyndy
Miller Farms Equine Transport--Thx, David
Posts
Smart, consice, and not demeaning oh,...
ReplyDeleteand right.
Sexiest thing I've read in a long time.
I wandered over from Sheepy's blog after your eloquent response to a previous post. Nice response on health care!
ReplyDeleteThx ryan and Boomer! I appreciate your kind words!
ReplyDeleteDuane,
ReplyDeleteI'm nobody you know, just someone crusing the web after receiving the same e-mail that I think you received from your Dad...if I read your post properly. But I have some questions that I simply don't understand.
First, I'm bothered that the first words out of your mouth in interpreting the writer's comments are, "racism." Wny? Isn't it possible that someone can disagree and not be a racist? Isn't it possible that someone paying their hard earned money to an organization doesn't want to see that money spent in a way in which they disagree? Perhaps they are concerned that their benefits have been watered down because the AARP has chosen to spend a portion on translating the materials into a separate language, not because they are "racist." I don't know--maybe they ARE racist. My point is that to use such an awful word--IN THE FIRST SENTENCE--to sterotype someone based on a single letter that could very well have been falsified with their names ("On the internet no one knows you're a dog") should be avoided in my opinion.
Second, as you state, progress in the area of health care would be good. But there is the question of where lines are drawn when it comes to government involvement. When a solution targets solving a problem for 15% of the population, and it is not clear that the solution will not penalize or hurt the other 85% of the population, should the government be pushing such a solution? Perhaps so, perhaps not, but until THAT question is addressed, I don't believe it benefits any of us to move forward.
I should note that I believe health care is a borderline issue on these points--many issues are clearly black and white, others not so. For example, if we were talking about whether blacks are sentenced more harshly for a crime than whites, then no matter if just one person were involved, I believe the government should intervene. Likewise, equal pay for equal work. I believe that for these issues clearly the government should act.
However, what about something like "town beautification?" Should the federal government tax the majority of the population in order to "beautify" portions of cities that are not quite up to snuff? I don't believe so. Not on a national level, and not without listening to and addressing the opposing sides concerns.
I believe health care is somewhere between these two extremes. And I believe that there are far more questions about government run health care at this time in the plans proposed than there are answers. And because I believe past performance dictates future actions, I am EXTREMELY concerned that the government has failed to learn any serious lessons--and make progress as you described--based on Medicare, Medicade, the VA health plan, and the Native American health care plans. All four have had serious issues, none of which seem to be have been addressed in their current programs or in the programs being suggested in these new bills. In other words, I want to learn from our past problems and make progress, again just as you described. Right now, that doesn't seem to be happening.
Does that mean we should abandon health care reform? Certainly not. I believe it requires a serious and thoughtful discussion of past failures and successes, past problems and solutions, and a pragmatic approach that leads to the success you describe. Right now that isn't the process I see happening. And both sides have been far too quick to label those who disagree with "loaded" names.
Ken
P.S. I'm posting this as "anonymous" only because I don't have any of the profiles listed.