“Back in the day” when I first became involved in politics, my colleagues and I engaged in heated debates but literally broke bread and grabbed beers after long days at work. Of course, that was in the mid-1980s. However, the location was the nation’s capital where political debate tends to be consistently heated. The sense of civility (and friendship) which was widespread in the 1980s is starkly absent today.
I had what can only be described as an unpleasant encounter with a person that can properly be categorized as a political “wannabe” earlier today. The encounter cannot correctly be called a conversation or discourse. The individual, who I will call “Dude,” fancies himself a political guru. In fact, his only claim to fame appears to be coming in fifth place (out of seven) in a race for a local township’s board of supervisors. Had his conduct not been so appalling, I would note that I perfectly understand that all politicians must start somewhere and that there is no dishonor in defeat (even a major pummeling). But, in this case and as will become evident as this essay progresses, for the good of the electorate, one can only hope that Dude’s political career began and ended in that tiny race.
In fairness, he is also somehow associated with OFA – the organization once called Organizing for Obama, later called Organizing for America and now called Organizing for Action. Its sole purpose is to blindly yap about whatever seems to be necessary to blindly support the current occupant of the White House. Dude is a master at parroting OFA talking points, but lacks a rudimentary command of even the basic facts associated with any of the major issues crossing the transom today.
Also in the interest of fairness, I need to share the topic of “discussion” and Dude’s understanding of it. The topic was the number of people who signed up and paid for insurance through the Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare) Exchanges. Unfortunately, Dude did not appear to understand that there is a difference between initial enrollees and the number of people who pay for insurance.
In any event, at the time of this writing, we continue to await for the White House to release the number of people who paid for insurance through the Exchanges. Most industry estimates suggest the number will be well below what is needed to sustain the risk pool. The White House has somewhat already conceded that the number of healthy and young paid insureds clocks in somewhere at about 28% of the total (whatever the total is). This percentage, being floated by the White House, is 12% below the mark of the total needed to make the Exchange related risk pool financially viable.
We were not more than a couple minutes into the exchange when Dude started dodging the issues and piling on the insults. No facts were in the offing until Dude “cited a study from the RAND Corporation” that he argued supported his proposition that over 7 million people paid for insurance through the Exchanges.
I (correctly) pointed out that the study he cited was not from the RAND Corporation but the Urban Institute. (I extended him the courtesy of checking the source he provided.) The Urban Institute study provided no data supporting his argument. He clearly had not read (or perhaps does not understand) the RAND Corporation study, because it is not helpful to his position. Yes, the RAND Corporation study does note that 9.3 million Americans have gained insurance during the past year. But, 8.2 million of those people obtained coverage through employer plans, not ACA or Obamacare. The study reports that only 1.1 million previously uninsured Americans have gained insurance through the ACA Exchanges. The study does not provide clarity on the number of people who actually enrolled and paid for insurance through the Exchanges. It most definitely is not a study to be favored by a person touting the success of the ACA Exchanges.
When I attempted to point all of this out to Dude, he launched into his most offensive tirade of personal insults of all. As anyone who follows what I write or has attended lectures or presentations I make, I fairly frequently speak on the ups and downs of my own life. Dude’s insults were offensive slurs about my past that one would never expect from a so-called “progressive.” Indeed, his rant was the stuff of a drunkard who tippled too long in a dank pub.
In reality, the insults personally were no more than irritating. But, from the perspective of where political discussion is headed, Dude’s conduct is startling. The fact that this is what a political wannabe spews out in lieu of facts and reason is an alarming warning sign for what we might be in store for in the future. In short, if Dude is any example of the future of political discourse, discussion and debate, days ahead are likely to be even grimmer than what we experience at this time.
Of course, as I said, this individual lacks the acumen to really succeed in the political arena. However, even outliers and Munchkins are vocal and cause damage to meaningful attempts at civil public discourse. Thinking of the future in light of this encounter, I find myself not just shaking my head but sad for our country.
www.mikebroemmel.com
https://twitter.com/MFBRealEstate
www.legal-ink.org
No comments:
Post a Comment