Before anyone decides to dive in feet first and attemot to portray my opinion as that of some rabid right winger, I should point out that I live in a country with universal, state funded healthcare. I believe it's a good system, one that could work well in the US, and have been dismayed by all the distortions and lies that have characterised the Right's portrayal of such a system. That being so, I clicked on the YouTube link expecting to be shocked and outraged by the Senator's reaction. That's what the tone of both the article, and the CNN intro seemed to convey. And it was nothing of the sort. In reality, it was a senator gently re-iterating his position on the matter to a constituent who happened to disagree with his point of view. I fail to see what is so revolting about this. The author and the CNN presenter seem to be impying that, faced with grieving/distraught/suffering voters, politicans should do an about turn on their previous positions! Doesn't seem like a particularly enlightened system of governeance to me.

First off, emotional blackmail of similar sorts was no problem for the GOP both in the runup to the wars in the ME as well as Joe Plumber and the "anti-american terrorist" accusations during the last election cycle as well as Cheney's advocacy for the efficacy of torture.

But secondly and more significantly, you have the hypocrisy of Coburn - with great healthcare insurance paid for by the public, referring the petitioner to approaches that have been PROVEN to be ineffective (the data on familial stress, religious non-engagment and loss of friendships caused by long term serious chronic disease is very very compelling), IS rather revolting.

And frankly Coburn's own response is a form of emotional blackmail Because it implies that this woman hasn't really levveraged the resources at her disposal because she hasn't relied on her friends and her church enough. And that her failure to do so, is an inate failing of hers, not of her community.

Wow that was quick. And over the top. Perhaps if you hadn't been so quick in rushing to judgement, you might have spotted the point that I believe the women, and all Americans, should have full access to government funded healtcare. I don't believe however, that public representatives, whatever their persuasion, should be expected to immediately change what may be deeply held beliefs, whenever they meet someone from the opposing camp who happens to have a tragic personal story. That's emotional blackmail, and you should know beter than to excuse or justify it on the basis that it's a favoured tactic of the Republicans.

Dear Einhard,

What's so revolting about Coburn's response is how utterly point-missing it is. It's an evasion, pure and simple, of a case in which the current health care system allows someone to fall through the cracks. What you see as Coburn "gently re-iterating his position," I see as Coburn stubbornly refusing to face reality. Even worse is the pandering sloganeering by which he does this: praise the virtues of small town life and slander Washington. To be sure, he was hardly viscious. But the dismissiveness of his reply is about as perfect an encapsulation of conservative ideological blinders as I can imagine.

cheers,

ribalding

He's not refusing to face reality ribalding. He's refusing to face your version of reality. He would no doubt argue that you are the one lacking in that particular department. I'm with you on healthcare. I think his position is wrong. But I also think it's wrong to expect him to change his beliefs purely because he is confronted with a tragic case.

I mean, what exactly did people expect? That he would suddenly turn around and say "You know what, you're right. Because of you, I'm now an advocate of universal, state funded healthcare. Not only that, but I'm gonna show a clip of this encounter to all my Republcian colleagues in the Senate, who will no doubt also change their minds and pass the reform bill, because only a monster would do otherwise". That's a ridiculous notion to even contemplate, and yet it's the only way Coburn could have responded without drawing down upon him cries of outrage and condemnation.

Einhard,

I think you make a very good point: That a politician should have enough belief in his own "principles" that it can withstand "emotional blackmail," even intense emotional blackmail.

And I do think the clip has been oversold by the headline and by the CNN guy. (However, I will say that I showed it to my Mom without showing her the headline or the CNN guy's commentary and the clip moved her to tears of outrage. Same for my sister, although, no tears.)

For me what disturbs me about Coburn's response is this: He, for whatever reason, felt compelled to help this one lady who showed up to his town hall meeting. I'm not sure if that was a genuine offer, or merely rhetorical, but let's just say it was genuine and Coburn truly feels obligated to help a distressed woman.

The next question I'd ask is this: Why this woman in particular? Well, you might say, she was there, blubbering into his microphone. Well sure. But isn't he aware (as a doctor) that millions of Americans are blubbering into their walls, into their steering wheels, into their mirrors and into their pillows because they have no idea how they are going to deal with the injury of their loved ones or themselves? Is he, a doctor and senator, so naive as to believe that he is the only woman in the United States who needs help?

I'm pretty sure the answer is "No." That he is plenty aware that millions of his fellow Americans are scared, and stressed and hurting. So does he help them?

No, not directly at least. And I, a proponent of the public option (and single-payer system) would say that he doesn't help them legislatively either. (I'd say his opposition to health care reform directly and legislatively HURTS them. But let's put that aside for now.)

So the question still remains: Why this one lady? Why was he, a government official willing to use the authority of his government office to help this one lady?

I think the answer to that question is the same as the question that asks why he has a similar health care solution but still opposes everything and anything in the Democratic plan:

POLITICS.

Einhard,

I understand the point you're trying to make. Coburn has a view about the way things are and the way things ought to be, and so do I. I don't expect him to flush one worldview and take up another at the drop of a hat. That would be naive. What I'm talking about is his ability to face inconvenient facts. It's not a "version of reality" that we are an extraordinarily wealthy country that leaves tens of millions uninsured and tens of millions more underinsured. It's likewise not a "version of reality" that thousands go bankrupt each year due to health care bills, or that countless numbers would lose their health insurance if they lost their job. It's not a "version of reality" that we spend twice the amount as a percentage of GDP on health care, and yet receive far less as a nation for it. And while I admittedly know little about the particular circumstances this woman and her husband are facing, I do know that the failure of the current system to meet her needs is a fact, and not simply an ideological interpretation of facts. I'm not sure how closely you've been following this debate, but there's nothing more predictable that a Republican spokesperson doing everything he or she can -- fabricate, distort, misdirect, manipulate -- to avoid coming face-to-face with the sheer, awful brokenness of health care in America.

To be honest, I *do* expect him to change his beliefs when they conflict with reality. Neighborliness and government non-intervention will do nothing to meet this woman's health care needs. Yet that's all he has to offer. The ability to recognize facts that lie outside one's theory and to alter the theory accordingly is surely a hallmark of moral integrity and intellectual maturity. It's hard to know if Coburn lacks these qualities or is merely cynical. At the end of the day I don't really care. I just know he has his head in the sand.

I wasn't surprised in the least that he answered the way he did. But it's still appalling.

best regards,

ribalding

We apply the label "neocon" generally only to the mythology of far-right foreign policy. But the essence of that mindset seems to me to be pretty much "ideology must always trump reality". And it's sure on display with Coburn's response. His "it's up to your friends and neighbors" is so grossly at odds with the reality he's facing, yet he chooses not to face it.

Americans need to tell their politicians that reality MATTERS, results MATTER, outcomes MATTER. Slogans and smug formulas sort of don't.

Coburn offered ineffective (provably so) platitudes in place of a solution. I think he should be held to account for that.

and it is not emotional blackmail to present him with compelling examples of how flawed his platitudes are.

Did none of you read Coburn's own proposal? Noah linked to it, and it includes a fairly major overall of the current system, including increased regulation (though it doesn't call it that) of private insurance practices of dumping the sick and denying coverage to paying policyholders. So it would not at all have been "about face of his own positions" to talk to the weeping woman about insurance reform and proper coverage for life-threatening conditions such as her husband's.

Why didn't he take the chance to tout his own proposal? He instead chose to pretend charity is the answer to all our health care problems, which suggests he believes the current system works just fine. So there is actually a discrepancy between his answer and what he proclaims to believe about health care reform.