Free Speech Rocks

OK, so recently I posted a ranting on my Facebook status. Here it is. If I had thought about it ahead of time, I might have rephrased, but…here it is:

Emily Schunior is thinking we shouldn't let Sarah Palin get away with dictating national health care policy from her Facebook page

And I linked to the OFA page where people can sign up to participate in the fight for quality, affordable health care for all Americans.

And one of my friends, whom I happen to know is extremely conservative (or Libertarian? we usually don’t talk politics because we’re both hotheads and her ideas are all wrong…wrong I tell you) responded to my post with a three word comment, “free speech rocks.”

I have thought about that comment for a week now and I really have to respond – not so much to her directly, but to the point of view she seems to represent. (In fairness to my friend, I did not follow up with her about her comment to clarify her meaning so maybe she really did mean, with no context, baggage, or inference, to celebrate free speech in America.)

So, first of all, yes. Sarah Palin has the right to say whatever the heck she wants on her Facebook page. Of course she does. I get it.

But you cannot distract me by goading me to defend my own credentials on freedom of speech!

I could at this point go on a long dissertation about how it is we liberals – card-carrying, little L, capital L, any kind of L-I-B-E-R-A-L liberals who live and die by the right to freedom of speech. I heart the ACLU! I could focus on the fact that my free speech honor has been impugned and lose my original point altogether.

But no – I will parry your thrust and not be distracted. I get that Sarah Palin has a right to free speech, whether or not I like what she says. As President Obama said to a group of fellow pro-reformers on Thursday, “Come on.” As in, come on, people. Stop being ridiculous. Give the person across from you a little bit of respect – s/he is not a Nazi. Come on. House Bill 3200 does not seek to create death panels. Come on. Emily Schunior believes in free speech rights. Come on.

But the point of my post wasn’t to say she shouldn’t be allowed to post her thoughts to Facebook. My point is: her thoughts on Facebook, once rightfully posted, should not be the basis for national health care policy. The reasons for this are myriad and self-evident:

A-F) She’s an idiot. Amply demonstrated and documented. I shall say no more.

G) OK, so that was probably not very tactful. Here are my real reasons:

H) This conjecture is open to correction. But unless I miss my guess, Sarah Palin isn’t an authority on medicine, health care policy, the insurance business, or anything else even vaguely connected to this debate. I’d bet the farm on the fact that she hasn’t read HR3200. (I haven’t either.) The people who are in a position to provide useful information to us are many, and none of them are named Sarah Palin. If you are looking for an authoritative opinion on health care reform, might I commend to your consideration:

i) our elected representatives serving in the House and Senate. The committee members on both sides of the aisle have been researching this and hearing testimony for many months, and in some cases, years, and decades. Naturally, their publicly expressed opinions are going to be colored by their politics, but that’s ok. I will listen to Eric Massa, Barney Frank (from the great state of Kiss My Mass-achussetts), and Amy Klobuchar. You can listen to Michele Bachmann and Jim DeMint if that’s your cup of tea (but I won't link you there). Either of these people is more informed on the issue than Sarah Palin.

ii) choose some organization you trust (not some newly formed organization whose name sounds good, like “Americans Heart Doctors” or “Freedom!”) but like, say, the AARP, some organization with a dog (your dog, or your grandma as the case may be) in the fight and with a history and track record of advocacy that you trust. Look at what they say about the issue. I also think the Kaiser Family Foundation has good material, including a side-by-side comparison of the major proposals.

iii) Wendell Potter.

iv)  Wendell Potter

v) Wendell Potter

vi)  Here’s an interesting one, see what Stan Brock, founder of the non-partisan Remote Area Medical, has to say.

vi) Of course, I think that a variety of moderately progressive thought leaders have produced good research and information like, for instance, Tom Daschle, Howard Dean, or, for a good, accessible but informative read, try Critical Condition by Donald Bartlett and James Steele, editors at Time.


I)  So, there are more informed and informative sources out there, but I don’t want to lose sight of an EVEN LARGER point: though she may not be an expert on health care policy, Sarah Palin is influential (God help us). And therefore, it is especially important that she shouldn’t be allowed to get away with outright lies. Have you seen this? Here is a cut from her now infamous Facebook entry. Read the whole thing in context if you must, or take my word from it that I am not abstracting away from her major point or falsely coloring her purpose by pulling out this tidbit:

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Now, come on.

What the heck are the quotes around “death panel” and “level of productivity in society” for? Is her suggestion that she’s quoting from the bill? Umm, I haven’t read it, but…that’s not in there. Her suggestion, nay her statement, is definitely, inarguably, that the legislative proposals on the table would create some sort of government agency or body that could decide whether individuals live or die. THAT IS ABSURD. That is insane. As Republican Representative from Georgia, Johnny Isakson, said before his balls were removed from his body, that is nuts.  To even suggest that President Obama or any Democrat, myself included, might think a panel of people to decide whether human beings should be provided live-sustaining medical care is a good idea. I mean, come on. This is not helping.

What I meant in my original, MUCH SHORTER Facebook post was that, progressive, conservative, libertarian, or nazi, we can all agree that a debate about an issue as important as health care reform (um, we do all agree it’s important, right?) is not well served by this type of statement. By such an obscene distortion, we have now derailed what could and should be a positive exchange of ideas that would serve us well.

Yes, she has a right to free speech, but as we all know, you cannot yell “Fire” in a crowded auditorium. What she has done is exactly analogous. She has yelled, “evil” and “The America I know and love” in a controversial political debate. In the subsequent stampede, real Americans are going to get hurt and die. I stand by my original statement – we should not let her get away with it.