The Face of Progressivism

Many people will throw the word 'progressive' around and intend for it to have a negative connotation. Well, newsflash: one of the many facets of progressivism is the protection of the weak from the abuses perpetrated upon them by the more powerful. That also extends to the educational environment and Massachusetts has now passed the most progressive anti-bullying legislation in the country.

Next time you think about using the word 'progressive' as a synonym of any negative word you can conjure up, think of this law and put a face on it. Then kindly rephrase your statement.

Brown v. Himself?

This is the candidate that the GOP has chosen in Massachusetts. Massachusetts people need to know that he is no small-government Republican or conservative in the classical sense (whom even I would support in the right circumstances or against a worthless opponent); he is a bigot, a Palinite, Limbaughesque figure with nothing to say except the most caricaturized and tired outcries that crumble over their own weight before he is done talking.

Listen as he cries out 'Sexism!' in support of Palin, only to say later that she won't be a lone woman in that position; her hubby will be with her. Like having a secessionist next to an idiot is a big comfort!

Oh, and Obama may be a bastard, too. His implication, not mine....

(Found in Krugman's blog)

Wanna Save Traditional Marriage?

Let gays marry. Seriously. In Massachusetts, where same-sex marriages have been allowed for the past five years, divorce rates are the lowest in the country. Not only that, but they are also at the same level as in 1940.

Queer, ain't it?

I knew that the argument that same-sex marriages would destroy traditional marriage were all fallacious, but this really packs a punch....

Way to go, Massachusetts! Lead the way and give the rest of the country a taste of what is progressive.

(Found via The Daily Dish)

Healthcare & Immigrants

There has been much ado and speculation about the proposed healthcare reform bill and how it addresses the issue of coverage for immigrants of different statuses. The New York Times has written an article describing the scenarios covered under the proposed bill. The article shows that, despite the widespread right-wing propaganda stating the contrary, the bill does not intend to cover illegal immigrants, and that there is a lot of talk among congressmen and women as well as between them and their constituents on the question of immigrants and healthcare. A great number of them are seeking citizenship status as a qualification for state-subsidized health insurance or enrollment in a public health insurance option.

As this article states, however, procedures verifying citizenship for applicants end up costing disproportionately more when considering the number of people they end up disqualifying. Furthermore, I must add that excluding legal, tax-paying, non-citizen residents from the possibility of state-subsidized or public healthcare is not a fair option and should not be entertained by any congressmen or women. In addition, there is something to be said even about illegal immigrants (or, for that matter, tourists or visitors) being turned away at hospitals' doors simply because they do not pay taxes. As an American, I would not like to see that happen. Emergency care—which is all that would reasonably be required by illegal immigrants/visitors/tourists before immigration and deportation agencies move in to act—is, by definition, a question of life or death, and I would not like to see anybody turned away or die because of our xenophobic attitude on healthcare.

As far as the U.S. being turned into a haven for foreigners seeking good healthcare, one must simply consider the current and possible future cost of healthcare and medication in this country. Even if those costs were halved, they would still be unaffordable to our neighbors in the south (because, let's face it, we only think of them when we say 'immigrants').

What we need to do is look at the example of other countries who have been dealing successfully with healthcare for decades and have, indubitably, dealt with measures for immigrants. Or, lest we start spreading fears of following the example of 'socialist' countries, we could look further than the example of Massachusetts, which has just limited certain covered services for recent, legal immigrants, and learn from its mistakes about how to avoid such limiting measures on the national level.

Massachusetts Ain't Half Bad

We all know that. And the same could be said about its healthcare system. It has been a success much more than it has been a failure. As a matter of fact, it was (and granted, still is) merely a challenge, and not a failure at all, as this New York Times article will attests.

Many people in my talks about the immediacy of a national public health insurance option have brought up the example of Massachusetts on the side of 'failed government-run plans.' Consider this as another part of my continuing answer and counter-argument to that fallacious and misinformed statement.

Massive lessons

As a former (and, de jure, still) Massachusetts resident, I took advantage of the state-issued, state-subsidized health insurance while I was unemployed during the summer prior to coming to California. Luckily, I did not need any medical attention and did not make a single visit to the doctor in those few months. Having insurance did, however, provide me great peace of mind, which may have contributed to my mental stability, if nothing else. I am certain many Massachusetts residents benefited in the same way. And I am even more certain that a similar healthcare plan on the federal level will provide again the same benefits for millions of Americans.

As this article shows, the Massachusetts plan wasn't infallible, but it wasn't a failure, either. It was a shot in the dark in a state and country where comprehensive insurance of that kind had no precedent. The time has come to expand on what we have learned and to make it possible for every American who desires health insurance to afford and obtain it.