Affordable Care Act undermined by false beliefs that undermine humanitarian values

[caption id="attachment_17150" align="alignleft" width="300"] Learning about health care options[/caption]

Carol Forsloff---After living in Hawaii 28 years, a journalist has perspective on health coverage, given the way the State has functioned with its insurance programs and coverage. There are good reasons why Hawaii ranks #1 in health factors, much of it having to do with the availability of health care.

In Hawaii every employer must provide health coverage for employees who work 20 hours weekly or more. The State also has a program for the poor, so that they too have coverage when they are unable to work or are otherwise in need of health care maintenance.

For 28 years, unless there was a job specifically with insurance coverage, I was unable to leave the State. That's because of preexisting health conditions from a long-term and life-threatening illness that occurred when I was 35. Individual insurance was either not available, and I was declined, or so expensive that it would have meant a choice between food or health care.

In Louisiana every presentation from a politician around the State focused on the negatives of the Affordable Care Act when it was first proposed and watching and listening to “plants” in audiences and vetted questions so that no one was allowed to question speakers, all offering those negatives, brought information to this journalist that there were planned techniques to undermine almost any decision made by President Barack Obama.

Much of the continuing spread of those negatives has to do with the psychology of all of us. When we hear criticism constantly about anyone, even if the individual being criticized is a close friend or relative, we begin to question our beliefs. After all, how can so many people who differ with us be wrong? In addition there is also the dictum that it's harder to believe the truth when it's told after a falsehood has spread,

The statement from Republicans that focused on undermining any decision made by Obama has made not just a difficult environment within the political party but a toxicity of belief that has permeated almost every social issue in America. That includes guns, women's rights, immigration and health care. Those who oppose the loudest voice are shouted down indeed. That means truth is never read or heard by the larger number of people.

Indeed as some of the media has declared, the mainstream television, radio and newspaper stories seldom, if ever, offer an positive information about the Affordable Care Act, even when there are many stories of people receiving health insurance who were denied health insurance when they desperately needed it most.

Surely the Affordable Care Act has snags, but so did Medicare and Social Security when these programs were first unveiled. And those programs met with many of the same criticisms---primarily by those who used the words “Socialist” or even “Communist” in relationship to them. But there was not the concerted effort, vocalized by leaders of the opposition, to undermine completely any of the President's ideas at the time. Targeting an individual repeatedly will eventually wear down the public good will, as it has in the case of Barack Obama. And this means from both left and right, especially in the more extreme areas of the spectrum of each party but reaching into the moderate groups as well, because those who scream the loudest and the longest become the message most heard and believed.

If young people do not join the program, and others don't who believe the worst about it, then the program will fail for sure. And those who had hoped that everything Obama did would fail would have met their objectives, stated objectives as they were. That will inevitably lead to folks looking for an alternative, and where else will they look but among those who will say, “I told you so” when the program fails entirely.

Indeed a recent letter from Rush Limbaugh to his public says this, “If you believe in government, you should be furious about Obamacare’s incompetent rollout: A fiasco that could haunt progressives for years to come.” – Headline, “The New Republic,” Nov. 14, 2013

“If this goes down, if health care, the Affordable Care Act, is deemed a failure, this is the end – I really mean it – of liberal government, in the sense of any sense that government as an instrument of social justice, an engine of economic progress, which is what divides Democrats from Republicans – that’s what Democrats believe.” – Mark Shields, “PBS News Hour,” Nov. 15,

28 years in Hawaii was not a negative experience, but the lack of health care opportunities prevented me from moving on to independent work, a full-time private practice in counseling and a strong area of journalism opportunities as well. It is the choice many people must make when they can't lose their jobs for fear of losing health coverage they couldn't otherwise get. And the lack of the option will cause needless suffering and death, all arising from the false notions that Obama be defeated at all cost, thus undermining the humanitarian value of good health for everyone.

Are Limbaugh's remarks a distraction or verbal abuse?

[caption id="attachment_14374" align="alignleft" width="240"] Rush Limbaugh[/caption]

Carol Forsloff - Recent remarks made by Rush Limbaugh raise questions about the type of language represented in the media that magnifies, expresses, or reflects the language that is accepted by a culture.

In responding to a female activist with reference to birth control and its inclusion in healthcare legislation, Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a femme Nazi, a word he himself coined some years ago about female proponents of equality. Christian Science Monitor asks the question, "Has Rush Limbaugh finally gone too far?"

Raising this question allows examination of what is acceptable in public speech, specifically from the media in response to issues. While there are some folks who consider Rush Limbaugh more of an entertainer than a journalist, the radio host and provocateur offers snippets of news along with his comments about recent events and is listened to by millions of individuals who see Limbaugh as a source of information on current affairs.  

Sandra Fluke testified about women's rights to contraception. She is a Georgetown University law student. Republican lawmakers have produced an all-male panel to refute inclusion of contraception as a free benefit under the new Healthcare bill. The Democrats addressed their concerns by selecting Fluke as a woman articulate in women's rights.

Following her testimony, Limbaugh addressed the issue of contraception and how he sees it as a way for women to receive welfare and a service without paying for it in order to get as much sex as they want. It is what he said further that has raised controversy and questions about what is appropriate speech in the media.

After labeling Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute", Limbaugh went on to say “If we are going to have to pay for this then we want something in return, Ms. Fluke,” Limbaugh said on his radio show earlier this week. “And that would be the videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we’re getting for our money.”

So what is verbal abuse? Experts tell us there are specific characteristics to it. Some of these are the following:   First it is said to be hurtful and directed towards demeaning an individual. The abuse can be subtle or direct, with name-calling and angry outbursts. It is often used as a means of control. In addition it is often unpredictable and shocking. Experts further tell us there is often no closure from the abuse, and the issues that provoked it can remain unresolved. The abuser is focused primarily on the anger and control.

In reviewing what occurred concerning Rush Limbaugh's verbal attack specifically on Sandra Fluke and the issue of contraception and healthcare legislation, Christian science Monitor reflects on the fact that the controversial radio host will likely not back down, then quotes a key Republican in response to concerns about verbal abuse as this“It doesn’t help,” said Carly Fiorina, National Republican Senatorial Committee vice chairman,  on "CBS This Morning." “That language is insulting, in my opinion. It’s incendiary and most of all, it’s a distraction.”

That type of distraction experts tell us is more than a distraction and an example instead of control and manipulation. The excuse that the victim deserved it is insufficient according to the same experts and a reflection of the misunderstanding about verbal abuse and how hurtful it can be when it is used by a public figure such as Limbaugh.  It tortures political and social debate, according to Michael Brenner, and in doing so widens the chasm of understanding that is required to govern, and to vote, with knowledge and responsibility.