This is the final article I have for OpEdNews, not because I have run out of thing to say, but because OpEdNews has deteriorated to be only a shell of the almost-excellent site it used to be. Whether it is the arrogance that resides among administrators or the constant bickering among participants who argue incessantly on subjects they have never studied, expertise they don't have or experiences they have never lived, and write articles under the same circumstances, I have come to the conclusion I have better things to do with my life than just expeience more of the same old same old. So it is time to move on and seek a better place to post progressive articles. One of the final straws came weeks ago with a bizarre experience with one of OpEdNews's amateur "editors" who failed to measure up to a real editor's responsibility. A couple of decades as an editor at Pulitzer Prize-winning metropolitan dailies tends to teach one what a editor's responsibilities are. I had begun a three part series proposing several actions to address many problems plaguing the nation. When Part III was submitted with a proposed dual-payer alternative to a single-payer healthcare system in which reformed Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) could be incorporated into a universal system, an "editor" responded, "You're wrong," then launched into a tirade against HMOs while claiming only a single-payer system would suffice and demanding abandonment of my original concept to embrace the stale concept of the "editor," which no competent editor would ever think of doing nor be allowed to do. Unfortunately this "editor" doesn't think, because in a single-payer system, most Americans would get their healthcare through HMOs, so it's best to use reformed HMOs, as the article proposed. The response by this "editor" was strange because a proposal is just that; a proposal. It can not by wrong, nor can it be right. It cannot be false and can not be true. It can not be correct nor can it be be incorrect. It is just a concept, for god's sake, an idea that carries no qualifying adjective other than "workable?". Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell once said, "There's no such thing as a false idea." And the dual-payer system proposed could very well be more workable than a single-payer system. The United States, after all, has a dual system in place with the national part called Medicare and the state function known as Medicaid; what the nation doesn't have is universal coverage. A thinking person can see the merits of carrying this dual system into universal coverage, even though an OEN "editor" can't. So why would a logical person abandon a superior concept for a lesser concept just to please an amateur who doesn't understand what a proposal is? The "editor" ranted on about how "greedy" HMOs had ruined healthcare in this nation, which isn't true. It's insurance companies that have destroyed the system. Insurance companies are the ones that refuse to pay for lifesaving medication. It's insurance companies that refuse payment for new but effective procedures, calling them "experimental." It is insurance companies that refuse to pay for preventive treatment that would forestall many of the problems insurance companies also refuse to pay for when they occur. It's insurance companies that deny coverage to any person not in perfect health. It's insurance companies that drop policy holders when they become ill after years of paying premiums while healthy. It's insurance companies that place a ceiling on coverage then require copay so high few can afford it. It's insurance companies that deny or delay paying for treatment until a patient dies, only then agreeing to pay what it no longer needs to pay for. And insurance companies send hundreds of millions of dollars, better used for healthcare, to politicians to maintain the present corrupt system. After having ample time, the "editor" refused to run Part III, thereby destroying the entire series and depriving OpEdNews readers the opportunity to consider the viability of some professionally prepared original thinking that would address this country's problems much better than the same old tired and failed methods. It is infuriating that after years of formulating a concept in a Mensa-quality mind, another person who has seen but a simplified basic sketch of a minute part of the whole concept during a few seconds of reading decides he, she or it knows more about the concept than does the creator. Such arrogance, and stupidity, is unacceptable. Progressives should be seeking out and encouraging new ideas to address the deplorable condition the nation is in, not squashing them. Also unacceptable is the OpEdNews attitude that, "We won't listen to anyone but ourselves." That was demonstrated when, after a remake of the lead page, a small problem with alignment cropped up on some computers. With type at a certain size, a line was extended so that it wrapped around to continue below the original line and pushed the remainer of the page far to the right. Proper alignment was possible only when type was reduced to a size that prevented the wraparound but was so small it was almost impossible to read. When this problem was mentioned to the administration, the knee-jerk reply was "You are at fault, you are at fault" without bothering to consider that there may be a problem with the coding. Even after the administration was told exactly what was needed to solve the glitch and where exactly the correction had to be placed there was no effort to even look at the coding. When a person reports a problem or glitch, it is because there is a problem or glitch, and should expect a courteous, if not civil, reply; not an attack. It wasn't until another remake of the lead page was made several months later that the proper coding was included and alignment was fine. Refusing to listen to others on this and other issues is pure George W. Bush operating procedure and should have no place at a progressive site nor does the conservative-like requirement that all must refrain from originality and think alike. So after posting this diary entry, I will delete OpEdNews's URL from my computer, no longer waste my time with OpEdNews, no longer submit articles, no longer read the many unoriginal, stale-thinking, sophomoric, poorly prepared articles "editors" do approve which swamp the few articles that appear to be professionally crafted, nor will I contribute any money to its continuing operation. Goodbye.
Editor's note: When an article is rejected by one of our 45 volunteer editors, a form email is used, and editor are encouraged to add a PS that personalizes the rejection, with an explanation. Here is the personalized rejection Mr. Bonsell is referring to:
While I find some of what your are talking about interesting, what you are presenting in your section on health care reform is just flat out wrong. A single payer system, or medicare for all, would be the most streamlined efficient system possible. The HMO scheme you suggest is merely profit protection for these greedy self serving corporations that have nothing to do with health care delivery. In fact, a single payer system would save hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, almost immediately.
This is not mere opinion, but established, well researched fact. If you would like to rework that section, I'll take another look. I thought you would appreciate the opportunity to edit it yourself rather than have me do it.
As editor-in-chief, I find that I disagree with editor rejections rarely, between one and two percent of the time. This time, I WOULD disagree. While I am a strident single payer activist (my radio show last night was on the subject, with John Conyers and Walter Tsou, and I railed against Obama's position) I think it is important to keep the conversation open to other ideas-- so they can be challenged and it could well be that single payer will not be implemented, in which case it is important to discuss the less favorable alternatives.
If Mr. Bonsell chooses to re-submit the article, we'll run it. We encourage civil challenges to editorial decisions. This diary is not civil, it is not the usual way that writers challenge an editor. Mr. Bonsell could have dropped a senior staffer an email and to the best of my knowledge, he did not. Instead, he wrote this angry missive, NOT going the route a professional writer would go, sending a reasoned email to a higher up editor. Like I said though, if he wishes to resubmit it, we'll run it.
Regarding Bia's comments, writing on a political site is bloodsport and you better expect to be hit hard and attacked. It is ironic, when I think of the kinds of comments you've posted on others' articles, diaries and comments, that you take such offense when you've been on the receiving end. You need thicker skin.
Rob Kall
3
2
2
