Bob Schwartz

March 27, 2012

Otherism

At any moment in America, some portion of the population believes in and is engaged in otherism towards those not like themselves or whom they do not like. The proportion varies, the degree varies, the targeted others vary. It may be race, ethnicity, religion, geography, age, gender, sexual preference, class, wealth, anything. It has been that way, here and everywhere, and it will be that way.

What we can do, the best we can do, is try to shrink the proportion of the population acting on these tendencies, reduce the degree, lower the number of targets. At least we can change the mechanics built into the system, and allow others to do what anyone does, and to be free to be who anyone is. As for the hearts and minds of otherists, that is a farther reach, but ongoing awareness and open discussion is a start.

This is in the context of, a prelude to, a very brief comment on the Trayvon Martin case. There are only two certainties there: Trayvon Martin was shot dead by George Zimmerman and it is in some ways about race. Racism is the primary—though not sole—form of otherism in America. It is our curse, our karma, the legacy of a misguided enterprise that fed right into a tendency toward otherism. Progress is not so much a matter of two steps forward, one step back on a road. It is more like a chaotic, entropic society that wants to be better, if not good, but finds itself spinning around a dark past that throws orbits off kilter by its powerful gravity.

We constantly need to know where we are so we can make corrections, however slight. There was the election of a black President, and now there is this case. Let’s see how we do.

Leave a comment
March 27, 2012

Heritagecare

In 1989, Stuart Butler and others at the conservative Heritage Foundation laid the groundwork for Obamacare/Romneycare in the publication A National Health System for America. Chapter 2 by Butler, A Framework for Reform, outlines and explains “the key elements of a consumer-oriented, market-based, comprehensive health system for America.” Element #1 is “Every resident of the U.S. must, by law, be enrolled in an adequate health care plan to cover major health care costs.” (page 51):

The requirement to obtain basic insurance would have to be enforced. The easiest way to monitor compliance might be for households to furnish proof of insurance when they file their tax returns. If a family were to cancel its insurance, the insurer would be required to notify the government. If the family did not enroll in another plan before the first insurance lapsed and did not provide evidence of financial problems, a fine might be imposed.

In other words, a mandate.

Agree or disagree with the Heritage Foundation or this proposal, Butler deserves credit for putting together a cogent, well-written primer on health care history, a report on the shortcomings of the current system, and a set of well-reasoned and creative proposals.

But no good or at least well-intentioned deed goes unpunished. In the time since, and especially in the past year, Butler and others have taken pains to explain how this Heritage Foundation proposal isn’t Obamacare and, in any case, how the proposal has been misunderstood and misapplied. The document itself can still be found on the Heritage Foundation website, though it is not shown and linked as one of Stuart Butler’s documents.

No matter what is argued to the Supreme Court today, no matter what the Justices ultimately decide about the constitutionality of mandates, and no matter how the complicated political dance involving Obama, Romney, Obamacare, and Romneycare turns out, Heritagecare was there first. It is essential reading.

Leave a comment