We pay too much attention to "bad news." This includes government programs that aren't implemented as well as they might be, inability of politicians to agree on even basic facts, and outrageous things said or done by extremists on either end of the political spectrum.
We don't talk enough about "good news." This includes programs that accomplish what they were designed to do and politicians who do what they said they would. It includes positive things that are happening despite the efforts of some people to hold back the tide. And it includes signs of hope for the future.
This concentration on the negative has destructive consequences. If people think that all government programs are wasteful failures (as too many of my neighbors do), they lose hope that we can ever accomplish anything to improve life for all of us. If they believe all politicians are crooks and liars, they'll vote for the ones who tell lies that justify the voter's prejudice and self-interest. That's why I'm against negative political advertising.
In this blog, I'll try to focus on good news. Looking back, some of my previous posts have been about bad news. It's an easy trap to fall into ("can you believe the latest thing ____ said?"). But it's not helpful. There are lots of other places you can go if you want to get angry -- Fox News, MSNBC, Daily Kos, and many others. I can't do it as well as they do, so I'll try to be a positive voice.
Let me know what you think of this. Good idea? Crazy? Feel free to contribute your own good news stories.
The editorial page of The Wall Street Journal has consistently followed the right-wing line, blasting the Affordable Care Act at every opportunity. Perhaps if they read their own paper, they'd sing a different tune. This Sunday's WSJ contained an article titled, "How Obamacare Benefits Older Workers." The article points out that, for older workers not yet eligible for Medicare, "the ACA could provide an opportunity to get more-affordable insurance than in the past and make it possible to get coverage for those who might otherwise be denied insurance or find it too costly." The article goes on to say:
"For those age 65 and older, the ACA doesn't change the landscape much. 'Your Medicare is your health coverage, and you aren't required to buy anything new,' says Nicole Duritz, an AARP vice president for health and family issues. Still, there are improvements. Medicare coverage for preventive services, such as mammograms or colonoscopies, is being expanded, and Medicare will now provide free annual 'wellness' visits."
The author forgot to mention the closing of the prescription drug "donut hole." That's OK; another article in the same day's WSJ was titled, "Obamacare Aims to Close Medicare 'Doughnut Hole' - Shrinking Since 2010, It Will Close in 2020." That article says that "thanks to the Affordable Care Act . . . Medicare beneficiaries will see [the donut hole] shrink . . . in each year until 2020."
It's too bad the editorial board of the WSJ is blinded by right-wing ideology. Its reporters know better.
The New York Times published an extensively-researched article about the "blueprint for defunding Obamacare" created "shortly after President Obama started his second term." The plan was devised by the usual right wing conspirators: Tea Party Patriots, Americans for Prosperity, Freedom Works, the Club for Growth, and Heritage Action. Where did the money come from? Charles and David Koch, through one of their front groups, spent more than $200 million on this sinister effort.
When Hillary Clinton said there was a "vast right-wing conspiracy," people said she was exaggerating. We now know she was right.
The shame is that all this money and suffering is being caused to prevent Americans from getting affordable health care.