By Edwin Cooney
The passing of Edward Moore Kennedy after nearly 47 years of public service in the U.S. Senate brings forth much in the way of both nostalgia and reflection.
First and perhaps foremost, there are the days of Camelot even if “Camelot” turned out to be merely a widow’s heart-wrenching dream. The Kennedy administration was a mixture of a young president’s creativity (the Peace Corps), eloquence (his inaugural address), miscalculation (the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion), brilliant calculation (the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis), idealism (the Medicare fight of 1962), and determination (the 1962 struggle with the steel barons). Then, suddenly, in the space of four days of violence, tears and dignity, John F. Kennedy passed from a vital living being into the martyrdom of death.
Next there came the turbulence of the late Sixties starkly emblazoned in our awareness by the unforgettable issue-oriented and celebrity-bedecked presidential candidacy of Robert Kennedy. RFK’s candidacy would champion nonviolence as well as mutual love and respect before being silenced forever by yet another assassin’s bullet.
Then came the last of the three brothers who graced 1960s politics: Massachusetts Senator Edward (Teddy) Kennedy. Even as Teddy tearfully asserted that his brother should not be idealized in death beyond what he was in life, the genuine grief of millions across the country was salved by the thought that the man there, in St. Patrick’s Cathedral eulogizing his brother, might turn out to be the greatest Kennedy of them all.
Alas, such wasn’t to be. For one solid year it seemed that the elegant and eloquent thirty-six-year-old Massachusetts senator was clearly destined to sit in the White House. Only another tragedy (people feared young Ted’s assassination) could prevent that likelihood. Then suddenly there came an unexpected and bedeviling tragedy.
The weekend of July 18-20, 1969 was to be as much a Kennedy family triumph as a national one. President John Kennedy’s May 1961 goal that America put a man on the moon before the decade of the sixties was out was about to be realized. However, even before the Apollo 11 Spacecraft could enter lunar orbit after launching on Wednesday, July 16th, two families plus one political career suffered an immeasurable tragedy. For many Americans, the real character of Edward Moore Kennedy was revealed when he failed to immediately report the car accident in which he was involved that took the life of Mary Jo Kopechne, a former RFK campaign worker. Teddy was driving her “home or elsewhere” after an alcohol-ridden barbecue that Friday night.
The questions came thick and fast and over time it became clear that satisfaction with the answers increasingly depended just as much on one’s political orientation as it did on one’s sensibilities. As the reckless drowning of Mary Jo Kopechne undoubtedly revealed a character flaw or two or three in Edward M. Kennedy’s personhood, it equally demonstrated a willingness on the part of his political opponents to use his misfortune to stamp not merely the Senator himself, but even his political faith. Thus, the Kennedys passed from the gentle warmth of public nostalgia into the contentious domain of political analysis and judgment.
Still, throughout much of the 1970’s, Teddy Kennedy’s name was at the top of most people’s list of likely future presidents. In 1972 and 1976, Ted Kennedy gave passionate political orations in support of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter, the presidential candidates of those conventions.
Next came Senator Kennedy’s last plunge into presidential politics as he challenged his own party’s incumbent, President Carter, for re-nomination. However, by 1980, both his waistline and his voice had thickened; his enunciation was often blurred dulling the eloquence of his message. So it was Jimmy Carter rather than Edward Kennedy who faced (or, if you insist, lost to) Ronald Reagan thus bringing on a conservative era in politics.
Thereafter, Ted Kennedy proceeded to be the best senator possible. If it meant working across the aisle on behalf of the gentler parts of the conservative agenda, Ted Kennedy would do so. In so doing, he would befriend Senators Bob Dole of Kansas, Dan Quayle of Indiana, Orrin Hatch of Utah, John McCain of Arizona, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and, undoubtedly, a significant number of other GOP senators. He would champion issues such as civil rights, the rights of labor, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and, notably, the No Child Left Behind Act above and beyond its originator President George W. Bush.
First and foremost in Ted Kennedy’s heart was of course “Health Care.” Although he didn’t live to see its passage, it may well be that his name will be the ultimate force that makes a national health care bill a reality. If, as conservatives insist, Ted Kennedy possessed too little character to deserve election to the presidency, he possessed enough character to inspire hope in the lives of a lot of people who don’t have enough money to meet some important and, as I see them, fundamentally personal needs.
If we assign any value or legitimacy to Christ’s command that we feed his sheep as we would feed “Him,” then surely Senator Edward Moore Kennedy’s dedication to that commandment might do him more good than those presidential electoral votes he never received.
Now that he’s gone, the name Edward Moore Kennedy surely joins the names Robert Francis Kennedy and John Fitzgerald Kennedy among America’s grandest political legends.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, August 31, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
MY PERSONAL DILEMMA
By Edwin Cooney
It depends on my mood, at least to some degree, sometimes. (Shhh! Don’t tell anybody, but sometimes I actually like to argue.) The truth is that debate is as nourishing to me as mother’s milk is to a kitty.
What issue you ask? Any issue — health care, Barack Obama, Rush Limbaugh, baseball’s designated hitter, whether the Bible is or isn’t the word of God — you name it and whether or not I know anything about it, I’ll gladly explore the idea with you. I may do this to see how much you know and are willing to tell me, thus improving my knowledge. I may explore the topic with you because you’ve said something I find encouraging, debatable, disgusting, touching or even self-revealing.
As I’ve asserted over the past couple of years, I was attracted to Barack Obama’s candidacy because I’d grown very weary of the “culture war.” The “culture war” has been underway since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade on Monday, January 22, 1973. That’s long enough for me. President Obama insists that “we, the people” have more in common than we have differences. I believe he’s right, but therein lays my dilemma.
If the culture war ends, what will I have to argue about? That’s a scary question! The close of the culture war will bring about awareness that we don’t have to be perpetually mad at one another over political issues. We may even grasp the realization that we are our brother’s and sister’s keeper: they need our love and support rather than our critical indifference as they strive to make their way in the world.
Then, it’ll happen.
First there will come the “down” side, specifically, the withering away of big shot talk show hosts named Limbaugh and Schultz. Air America and Fox will become as extinct as the hula-hoop, the pet rock, the mood ring and your automobile’s cigarette lighter. Next, commercials from insurance companies like New York Life and Geiko (I can’t wait for that one!) will vanish. As for the “up” side -- radio will have to start playing records again…remember records? With the passing of talk radio and television, we’ll need more artists to write and produce radio plays, television movies, and documentaries. We will become a more learned and cultured society. We’ll realize that private insurance companies more than big government have been getting between our doctors and us. There’ll be tort reform thus stabilizing the costs of damage claims and so much more.
The dilemma is that with these changes and the end of the “culture war,” the issue (that wonderful political entity) will either die or become an endangered species like the buffalo and the spotted owl.
A number of years ago, the ABC network’s answer to NBC’s “Meet the Press” and CBS’s “Face The Nation,” was a news interview program called “Issues And Answers.” Now, if you ask me, that’s the elephant in the room of American society. The truth is that subconsciously Americans love issues better than they do answers. That, I fear, is my bottom line dilemma!
A few weeks ago, a very fine gentleman who lives in North Dakota sent me this quote from President John F. Kennedy as a “thought for the day”.
“So, let us not be blind to our differences - but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved.”
A splendid sentiment Mr. President, but an anecdote concerning one of your presidential predecessors makes my point.
Thomas “Tommy the Cork” Corcoran, one of FDR’s two major legislation writers, hadn’t always admired the erudite president. In fact, when he transferred from the Hoover administration to the administration of the New Deal he was angry with the new president. He disliked the aloofness exhibited toward President Hoover as he struggled with the Great Depression in the final days of his presidency. However, as Corcoran wrote legislation that saved people’s homes, bank accounts and their employment, his anger slowly turned to deep admiration.
One day late in FDR’s first term, Corcoran was sent up to Capital Hill along with White House lobbyist Charlie West by the president. He was to get members’ names on a petition to bring the minimum wage bill to a vote in the house. “I’ve got it, boss,” Corcoran told the president when he returned. “Where the hell have you been, Tommy?” FDR asked. “I’ve been up on the hill getting those names,” Corcoran said. “And right behind you was Charlie West getting the names you got on that petition right off,” FDR informed the young lawyer “But boss, don’t you want the…” “Tommy, please,” said the president, “That was merely for public show. I want the issue!” he declared.
There it is, “Tommy the Cork’s” story, FDR’s 1936 re-election issue, and my own dilemma all rolled into one scary reality.
Why have answers when one can have issues? Think of all the employment opportunities that issues bring to Rush Limbaugh, Ed Schultz, even pharmaceutical companies that manufacture Tums and tranquilizers. The beat just goes on and on and on and so does my personal dilemma!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
It depends on my mood, at least to some degree, sometimes. (Shhh! Don’t tell anybody, but sometimes I actually like to argue.) The truth is that debate is as nourishing to me as mother’s milk is to a kitty.
What issue you ask? Any issue — health care, Barack Obama, Rush Limbaugh, baseball’s designated hitter, whether the Bible is or isn’t the word of God — you name it and whether or not I know anything about it, I’ll gladly explore the idea with you. I may do this to see how much you know and are willing to tell me, thus improving my knowledge. I may explore the topic with you because you’ve said something I find encouraging, debatable, disgusting, touching or even self-revealing.
As I’ve asserted over the past couple of years, I was attracted to Barack Obama’s candidacy because I’d grown very weary of the “culture war.” The “culture war” has been underway since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade on Monday, January 22, 1973. That’s long enough for me. President Obama insists that “we, the people” have more in common than we have differences. I believe he’s right, but therein lays my dilemma.
If the culture war ends, what will I have to argue about? That’s a scary question! The close of the culture war will bring about awareness that we don’t have to be perpetually mad at one another over political issues. We may even grasp the realization that we are our brother’s and sister’s keeper: they need our love and support rather than our critical indifference as they strive to make their way in the world.
Then, it’ll happen.
First there will come the “down” side, specifically, the withering away of big shot talk show hosts named Limbaugh and Schultz. Air America and Fox will become as extinct as the hula-hoop, the pet rock, the mood ring and your automobile’s cigarette lighter. Next, commercials from insurance companies like New York Life and Geiko (I can’t wait for that one!) will vanish. As for the “up” side -- radio will have to start playing records again…remember records? With the passing of talk radio and television, we’ll need more artists to write and produce radio plays, television movies, and documentaries. We will become a more learned and cultured society. We’ll realize that private insurance companies more than big government have been getting between our doctors and us. There’ll be tort reform thus stabilizing the costs of damage claims and so much more.
The dilemma is that with these changes and the end of the “culture war,” the issue (that wonderful political entity) will either die or become an endangered species like the buffalo and the spotted owl.
A number of years ago, the ABC network’s answer to NBC’s “Meet the Press” and CBS’s “Face The Nation,” was a news interview program called “Issues And Answers.” Now, if you ask me, that’s the elephant in the room of American society. The truth is that subconsciously Americans love issues better than they do answers. That, I fear, is my bottom line dilemma!
A few weeks ago, a very fine gentleman who lives in North Dakota sent me this quote from President John F. Kennedy as a “thought for the day”.
“So, let us not be blind to our differences - but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved.”
A splendid sentiment Mr. President, but an anecdote concerning one of your presidential predecessors makes my point.
Thomas “Tommy the Cork” Corcoran, one of FDR’s two major legislation writers, hadn’t always admired the erudite president. In fact, when he transferred from the Hoover administration to the administration of the New Deal he was angry with the new president. He disliked the aloofness exhibited toward President Hoover as he struggled with the Great Depression in the final days of his presidency. However, as Corcoran wrote legislation that saved people’s homes, bank accounts and their employment, his anger slowly turned to deep admiration.
One day late in FDR’s first term, Corcoran was sent up to Capital Hill along with White House lobbyist Charlie West by the president. He was to get members’ names on a petition to bring the minimum wage bill to a vote in the house. “I’ve got it, boss,” Corcoran told the president when he returned. “Where the hell have you been, Tommy?” FDR asked. “I’ve been up on the hill getting those names,” Corcoran said. “And right behind you was Charlie West getting the names you got on that petition right off,” FDR informed the young lawyer “But boss, don’t you want the…” “Tommy, please,” said the president, “That was merely for public show. I want the issue!” he declared.
There it is, “Tommy the Cork’s” story, FDR’s 1936 re-election issue, and my own dilemma all rolled into one scary reality.
Why have answers when one can have issues? Think of all the employment opportunities that issues bring to Rush Limbaugh, Ed Schultz, even pharmaceutical companies that manufacture Tums and tranquilizers. The beat just goes on and on and on and so does my personal dilemma!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, August 17, 2009
THE ULTIMATE QUESTION
By Edwin Cooney
It was bound to happen. The ultimate question -- “do you love America?” -- has finally caught up with me.
It’s a painful question, not because of its answer, but because sincere people feel compelled to ask it.
I was a four-year-old kindergartener and America was fighting Communism in Korea when I first became aware of our country. I knew we were “the good guys” because everyone I knew -- my foster parents, my friends, my teachers in regular school and Sunday school, and, of course, my minister -- were “good” and THEY were Americans. If, as they assured me, Korean, Chinese, and Russian Communism were all bad and had to be stopped by brave American soldiers, it must be true.
Like most American boys, I loved adventure stories and most of the heroes were American to the core. I thrilled to the stories of young George Washington’s adventure from comfortable Virginia into the wilderness of the Ohio River Valley during 1753-54 where he and his companion Christopher Gist nearly drowned in the icy waters of the Monongahela River while demanding that the French stop stirring up the Indians against British settlers. I relished the stories of General Jackson’s 1815 victory at New Orleans, Admiral David Farragut’s Civil War naval battles at Mobile Bay and New Orleans, and Teddy Roosevelt’s adventure at San Juan Hill (really it was Kettle Hill) in 1898, and, oh, so many more.
The America I grew up in stood for ideals: crime doesn’t pay, freedom and justice for all, America -- the land of opportunity, and, of course, the golden rule of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
My boyhood heroes included Abraham Lincoln who walked 15 miles to return two cents to a customer of his Salem, Illinois store and, as President, freed the slaves, Douglas MacArthur who returned to liberate the Philippines during World War II, and, of course, President Eisenhower, a soldier who became President to insure our safety and our peace.
America, of course, wasn’t all about war. America was also about baseball, the Mickey Mouse Club, Hula hoops, strong, taciturn men in cowboy hats, sweet, smart and fun-loving girls in cuddly sweaters, pop music, and, ultimately, the space race.
As a teen, I fretted about Nikita Khrushchev’s hair-trigger temper and dependence on Vodka as his finger wavered above the nuclear button. Then there were those five tense days in October of 1962 during which a determined President Kennedy, who had himself tasted war in the South Pacific, calmly and steadily applied pressure in the right place and gave ground where necessary until the crisis had passed. While during the years that immediately followed “The Missiles of October” I would have gladly sacrificed my physical well being to teach North Vietnam’s leader Ho Chi Min a lesson, I began slowly but steadily to take an intense interest in what America was all about.
America, after all, was and is my home. If Vietnam was a quagmire, if civil wrongs needed to be transformed into civil rights, if in foreign affairs we experienced crisis after crisis, what was wrong? If there were political scandals, why did they occur? Thus, my study of American history became and still remains a passion.
As I assert to those who wonder what makes me tick, my personal regard or love doesn’t require perfection. Nor do I regard political differences as moral differences.
It has been observed that forty years ago the differences between Republicans and Democrats were primarily strategic. Today, political differences are too often viewed as moral differences. Hence we have “the Radical Left” and the “Wacko Right.” Few people press the Right to identify “the moderate left” or the Left to identify “the sane right”. The result of this is that the well of ideas in this free society has been at least temporarily poisoned. Even worse, we too often dehumanize rather than merely politically oppose one another.
At least twice in our history, during the time of the Civil War and the Vietnam War, Americans have experienced this emotional phenomenon. It could be that much of our domestic frustration stems from the Vietnam War era and has been enhanced by additional political and economic crises.
Even with all of our suspicions and fears, we know that it is here where Americans have traditionally debated and created the promises and opportunities for the strongest, most intelligent and safest land on earth. Here we were born or here we came to thrive and this is our home.
As an old familiar song reminds us: “THERE’S NO PLACE LIKE HOME.”
It’s hard not to love that idea!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
It was bound to happen. The ultimate question -- “do you love America?” -- has finally caught up with me.
It’s a painful question, not because of its answer, but because sincere people feel compelled to ask it.
I was a four-year-old kindergartener and America was fighting Communism in Korea when I first became aware of our country. I knew we were “the good guys” because everyone I knew -- my foster parents, my friends, my teachers in regular school and Sunday school, and, of course, my minister -- were “good” and THEY were Americans. If, as they assured me, Korean, Chinese, and Russian Communism were all bad and had to be stopped by brave American soldiers, it must be true.
Like most American boys, I loved adventure stories and most of the heroes were American to the core. I thrilled to the stories of young George Washington’s adventure from comfortable Virginia into the wilderness of the Ohio River Valley during 1753-54 where he and his companion Christopher Gist nearly drowned in the icy waters of the Monongahela River while demanding that the French stop stirring up the Indians against British settlers. I relished the stories of General Jackson’s 1815 victory at New Orleans, Admiral David Farragut’s Civil War naval battles at Mobile Bay and New Orleans, and Teddy Roosevelt’s adventure at San Juan Hill (really it was Kettle Hill) in 1898, and, oh, so many more.
The America I grew up in stood for ideals: crime doesn’t pay, freedom and justice for all, America -- the land of opportunity, and, of course, the golden rule of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
My boyhood heroes included Abraham Lincoln who walked 15 miles to return two cents to a customer of his Salem, Illinois store and, as President, freed the slaves, Douglas MacArthur who returned to liberate the Philippines during World War II, and, of course, President Eisenhower, a soldier who became President to insure our safety and our peace.
America, of course, wasn’t all about war. America was also about baseball, the Mickey Mouse Club, Hula hoops, strong, taciturn men in cowboy hats, sweet, smart and fun-loving girls in cuddly sweaters, pop music, and, ultimately, the space race.
As a teen, I fretted about Nikita Khrushchev’s hair-trigger temper and dependence on Vodka as his finger wavered above the nuclear button. Then there were those five tense days in October of 1962 during which a determined President Kennedy, who had himself tasted war in the South Pacific, calmly and steadily applied pressure in the right place and gave ground where necessary until the crisis had passed. While during the years that immediately followed “The Missiles of October” I would have gladly sacrificed my physical well being to teach North Vietnam’s leader Ho Chi Min a lesson, I began slowly but steadily to take an intense interest in what America was all about.
America, after all, was and is my home. If Vietnam was a quagmire, if civil wrongs needed to be transformed into civil rights, if in foreign affairs we experienced crisis after crisis, what was wrong? If there were political scandals, why did they occur? Thus, my study of American history became and still remains a passion.
As I assert to those who wonder what makes me tick, my personal regard or love doesn’t require perfection. Nor do I regard political differences as moral differences.
It has been observed that forty years ago the differences between Republicans and Democrats were primarily strategic. Today, political differences are too often viewed as moral differences. Hence we have “the Radical Left” and the “Wacko Right.” Few people press the Right to identify “the moderate left” or the Left to identify “the sane right”. The result of this is that the well of ideas in this free society has been at least temporarily poisoned. Even worse, we too often dehumanize rather than merely politically oppose one another.
At least twice in our history, during the time of the Civil War and the Vietnam War, Americans have experienced this emotional phenomenon. It could be that much of our domestic frustration stems from the Vietnam War era and has been enhanced by additional political and economic crises.
Even with all of our suspicions and fears, we know that it is here where Americans have traditionally debated and created the promises and opportunities for the strongest, most intelligent and safest land on earth. Here we were born or here we came to thrive and this is our home.
As an old familiar song reminds us: “THERE’S NO PLACE LIKE HOME.”
It’s hard not to love that idea!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, August 10, 2009
AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE—IT’S JUST PLAIN PATRIOTIC
By Edwin Cooney
Okay, here it is: Despite three decades of tax cuts for business, the source of America’s medical care system, medical care costs have gotten way too high for most of us. Therefore, in the face of the lack of an effective check on these costs, most citizens believe something has to be done.
On the campaign trail last year, we heard countless stories of people who needed medical treatment and couldn’t get it due to the high cost of insurance coverage. Meanwhile, insurance premiums and medical care deductibles continued to rise.
Whether or not public healthcare is a human “right”, or socialistic, or even sufficiently effective is beside the point. I assert that it’s simply a question of good citizenship.
Historically, the opponents of healthcare legislation have asked the American people if they wanted government to get between them and their doctors. Historically, the American people have said a resounding “no”. So, the “free market” has had predominance in this area of our national life.
The problem is that the “free market” either can’t or won’t control its costs. Historically, there’s nothing new in this. The “free market” (or “free enterprise system”, if you prefer) once had the opportunity to wisely administer pay scales and safety conditions in the workplace and refused to do so — hence the rise of the labor union movement. At one time, private enterprise had absolute control over the sale of pure food and drugs and chose to sell cheap and rotten goods — thus, the pure food and drug act of 1906 was enacted. At one time, “private enterprise” or “the free market” had a monopoly on selling electric power to hardworking farmers and small businesses, but it refused to find ways to adequately finance the distribution of its goods and services — hence it was necessary to have public utility agencies and regulations. At one time, banking and investment had the chance to be both profitable and honorable. Too often, however, honor can be only a phase while profit always pays -- thus the need for the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulations.
Too often the same people who insist that you should be protected from an encroaching federal government insist that unelected insurance executives have your best interests at heart far more than your fellow Americans whom you elect to public office.
The answers to the following set of questions should take us beyond the traditional arguments regarding government-regulated healthcare. Since healthcare costs are too great, what mechanism (aside from public healthcare) could be utilized to bring costs down? If affordable healthcare isn’t a worthy public issue, how can it be a legitimate product for insurance companies? If the cost of uninsured citizens utilizing medical facilities is the main reason why insurance premiums and deductibles are increasing, wouldn’t we be better off if everyone had some form of coverage that pays into the system?
As I’ve asserted many times, I love politics and most politicians. However, it seems to me that if a society possesses the means but lacks the will to keep its citizens safe from the ravages of disease because politicians are reluctant to do whatever it takes to provide the funds or an alternate system, then shame on those politicians.
Of course, the money to pay for anything worthwhile ultimately has to come from those who have it -- but what’s wrong with that so long as the mechanism established to provide the service the money is paying for works? No one is suggesting that the solution to the healthcare crisis is to make paupers out of the rich any more than healthcare advocates are suggesting that affordable healthcare ought to be free. If government care is really and truly a question of principle, why then do all of these true “red, white and blue” congressmen and women accept healthcare benefits paid for by the government? They could still buy into private plans as government employees! Perhaps government care really and truly does work.
As I see it, the real issue is money and profit. If, as it was agreed to about three weeks ago, the American Hospital Association can afford to return to the economy about 150 billion dollars over the next decade, then there must be a healthy margin of profit within the existing system. Healthy profit margins are perfectly acceptable, but huge ones are both obscene and -- frankly -- unpatriotic.
If the free enterprise system that claims to create wealth in America won’t keep the people well, then let’s “conscript” it just as we conscript our youth in wartime!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Okay, here it is: Despite three decades of tax cuts for business, the source of America’s medical care system, medical care costs have gotten way too high for most of us. Therefore, in the face of the lack of an effective check on these costs, most citizens believe something has to be done.
On the campaign trail last year, we heard countless stories of people who needed medical treatment and couldn’t get it due to the high cost of insurance coverage. Meanwhile, insurance premiums and medical care deductibles continued to rise.
Whether or not public healthcare is a human “right”, or socialistic, or even sufficiently effective is beside the point. I assert that it’s simply a question of good citizenship.
Historically, the opponents of healthcare legislation have asked the American people if they wanted government to get between them and their doctors. Historically, the American people have said a resounding “no”. So, the “free market” has had predominance in this area of our national life.
The problem is that the “free market” either can’t or won’t control its costs. Historically, there’s nothing new in this. The “free market” (or “free enterprise system”, if you prefer) once had the opportunity to wisely administer pay scales and safety conditions in the workplace and refused to do so — hence the rise of the labor union movement. At one time, private enterprise had absolute control over the sale of pure food and drugs and chose to sell cheap and rotten goods — thus, the pure food and drug act of 1906 was enacted. At one time, “private enterprise” or “the free market” had a monopoly on selling electric power to hardworking farmers and small businesses, but it refused to find ways to adequately finance the distribution of its goods and services — hence it was necessary to have public utility agencies and regulations. At one time, banking and investment had the chance to be both profitable and honorable. Too often, however, honor can be only a phase while profit always pays -- thus the need for the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulations.
Too often the same people who insist that you should be protected from an encroaching federal government insist that unelected insurance executives have your best interests at heart far more than your fellow Americans whom you elect to public office.
The answers to the following set of questions should take us beyond the traditional arguments regarding government-regulated healthcare. Since healthcare costs are too great, what mechanism (aside from public healthcare) could be utilized to bring costs down? If affordable healthcare isn’t a worthy public issue, how can it be a legitimate product for insurance companies? If the cost of uninsured citizens utilizing medical facilities is the main reason why insurance premiums and deductibles are increasing, wouldn’t we be better off if everyone had some form of coverage that pays into the system?
As I’ve asserted many times, I love politics and most politicians. However, it seems to me that if a society possesses the means but lacks the will to keep its citizens safe from the ravages of disease because politicians are reluctant to do whatever it takes to provide the funds or an alternate system, then shame on those politicians.
Of course, the money to pay for anything worthwhile ultimately has to come from those who have it -- but what’s wrong with that so long as the mechanism established to provide the service the money is paying for works? No one is suggesting that the solution to the healthcare crisis is to make paupers out of the rich any more than healthcare advocates are suggesting that affordable healthcare ought to be free. If government care is really and truly a question of principle, why then do all of these true “red, white and blue” congressmen and women accept healthcare benefits paid for by the government? They could still buy into private plans as government employees! Perhaps government care really and truly does work.
As I see it, the real issue is money and profit. If, as it was agreed to about three weeks ago, the American Hospital Association can afford to return to the economy about 150 billion dollars over the next decade, then there must be a healthy margin of profit within the existing system. Healthy profit margins are perfectly acceptable, but huge ones are both obscene and -- frankly -- unpatriotic.
If the free enterprise system that claims to create wealth in America won’t keep the people well, then let’s “conscript” it just as we conscript our youth in wartime!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, August 3, 2009
THE TALL FROSTY TEACH-IN
By Edwin Cooney
As you know, last Thursday night, President Barack Obama, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Police Sergeant James Crowley of Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Vice President Joe Biden sat down for a couple of beers in the White House Rose Garden.
Each of these men, dedicated as they are to their professions, appear to be serious about their work. Additionally, all of these men appear to possess that essential perspective that allows for equity of judgment of people and situations. This is a good thing, because there is nothing people fear more than other people’s judgment.
Responding to a question at his July 22nd press conference about the July 16th arrest by Sergeant Crowley of his friend, Harvard Professor Gates, President Obama asserted that the Cambridge police had “acted stupidly”. The result was a firestorm of protests from Americans who just never, never, never misspeak. Furthermore, had the president said “no comment”, thus avoiding the controversy, many of these same citizens would have accused the president of protecting his political “you know what” for his political preservation. Of course, had the president not used the word “stupid” in his judgment of actions taken by the Cambridge Police Department, alas, there would have been no “teachable moment” at the White House last Thursday night.
The idea for the White House beer bash was Sergeant Crowley’s, not President Obama’s. The good sergeant was at a local bar when the president called him on his cell phone to apologize for calling his department “stupid”.
It’s just possible that we’ll have to wait for former President Obama’s memoirs to know what was said at the “teach-in”, but it’s not likely. What’s more likely is that radio and television talk show hosts, along with political and cultural analysts, will continue to belittle the president for wasting his time on such a trivial issue while themselves engaging in large lumps of air time, cyber- and pulp paper space on this very topic.
The president, a good politician, knows better than anyone else that what he says has a far greater impact on people’s feelings than anything the rest of us do, write, or say. Thus, we have the apology to the Police Union and to Sergeant Crowley and (of course) the White House Rose Garden teach-in. Seated around the picnic table were two blacks and two whites, none of whom marched with Dr. King (or Stokely Carmichael, for that matter), none of whom ever experienced slavery or owned a slave, all of whom have substantial incomes and even health care, and all of whom are admirable in one way or another. (We have it on good authority that Sgt. Crowley is strictly business once he gets behind his badge. He recognizes neither friend nor family member—only the public to be served via professional, not grudge, policing.)
So, who taught whom and what did they teach him? Did who learn? Was it hard for who to learn, or did whomever was learning easily see the light? What light did who see if who or whomever saw any light? (That’s only the first set of questions, but I’ll spare you the rest!)
There were apparently four frosty beers: Bud Light for the President, Red Stripe for Professor Gates, Blue Moon for Sergeant Crowley and—wait a minute—-what did Vice President Biden drink? He had to have had something because; as the president once told us, “You don’t mess with Joe.” Hopefully, Joe didn’t spoil the patriotic color scheme of red, lite, and blue! That would be terrible!
Of course, the White House Rose Garden “teach-in” had neither teachers nor students, but as a concept, it’s a pretty good one. Americans under our federalist system have known 43 persons identified as Mr. President. As well-meaning or even as qualified as any one of them may be, most people wouldn’t argue with the proposition that a president never possesses enough knowledge or wisdom. Hence, White House “teach-ins” are a hell of an idea, if you ask me.
We Americans of course are great traditionalists. Thus the tall frosty teach-in may well become the biggest boon to education since the old McGuffey reader or hickory stick.
Let’s see now: the littlest ones get plain milk or juice (sorry, kiddies: no soda!), the older kids get chocolate milk, and by the time kids get to junior high, both milkshakes and perhaps even smoothies are available. Sorry, kids, beer in the classroom doesn’t start until you are a junior in college.
Can you imagine all of those frosty stands at the front of every American schoolroom? Who says we’re not coming out of this economic recession?!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
As you know, last Thursday night, President Barack Obama, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Police Sergeant James Crowley of Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Vice President Joe Biden sat down for a couple of beers in the White House Rose Garden.
Each of these men, dedicated as they are to their professions, appear to be serious about their work. Additionally, all of these men appear to possess that essential perspective that allows for equity of judgment of people and situations. This is a good thing, because there is nothing people fear more than other people’s judgment.
Responding to a question at his July 22nd press conference about the July 16th arrest by Sergeant Crowley of his friend, Harvard Professor Gates, President Obama asserted that the Cambridge police had “acted stupidly”. The result was a firestorm of protests from Americans who just never, never, never misspeak. Furthermore, had the president said “no comment”, thus avoiding the controversy, many of these same citizens would have accused the president of protecting his political “you know what” for his political preservation. Of course, had the president not used the word “stupid” in his judgment of actions taken by the Cambridge Police Department, alas, there would have been no “teachable moment” at the White House last Thursday night.
The idea for the White House beer bash was Sergeant Crowley’s, not President Obama’s. The good sergeant was at a local bar when the president called him on his cell phone to apologize for calling his department “stupid”.
It’s just possible that we’ll have to wait for former President Obama’s memoirs to know what was said at the “teach-in”, but it’s not likely. What’s more likely is that radio and television talk show hosts, along with political and cultural analysts, will continue to belittle the president for wasting his time on such a trivial issue while themselves engaging in large lumps of air time, cyber- and pulp paper space on this very topic.
The president, a good politician, knows better than anyone else that what he says has a far greater impact on people’s feelings than anything the rest of us do, write, or say. Thus, we have the apology to the Police Union and to Sergeant Crowley and (of course) the White House Rose Garden teach-in. Seated around the picnic table were two blacks and two whites, none of whom marched with Dr. King (or Stokely Carmichael, for that matter), none of whom ever experienced slavery or owned a slave, all of whom have substantial incomes and even health care, and all of whom are admirable in one way or another. (We have it on good authority that Sgt. Crowley is strictly business once he gets behind his badge. He recognizes neither friend nor family member—only the public to be served via professional, not grudge, policing.)
So, who taught whom and what did they teach him? Did who learn? Was it hard for who to learn, or did whomever was learning easily see the light? What light did who see if who or whomever saw any light? (That’s only the first set of questions, but I’ll spare you the rest!)
There were apparently four frosty beers: Bud Light for the President, Red Stripe for Professor Gates, Blue Moon for Sergeant Crowley and—wait a minute—-what did Vice President Biden drink? He had to have had something because; as the president once told us, “You don’t mess with Joe.” Hopefully, Joe didn’t spoil the patriotic color scheme of red, lite, and blue! That would be terrible!
Of course, the White House Rose Garden “teach-in” had neither teachers nor students, but as a concept, it’s a pretty good one. Americans under our federalist system have known 43 persons identified as Mr. President. As well-meaning or even as qualified as any one of them may be, most people wouldn’t argue with the proposition that a president never possesses enough knowledge or wisdom. Hence, White House “teach-ins” are a hell of an idea, if you ask me.
We Americans of course are great traditionalists. Thus the tall frosty teach-in may well become the biggest boon to education since the old McGuffey reader or hickory stick.
Let’s see now: the littlest ones get plain milk or juice (sorry, kiddies: no soda!), the older kids get chocolate milk, and by the time kids get to junior high, both milkshakes and perhaps even smoothies are available. Sorry, kids, beer in the classroom doesn’t start until you are a junior in college.
Can you imagine all of those frosty stands at the front of every American schoolroom? Who says we’re not coming out of this economic recession?!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)