SYNDICATED COLUMN: To Trigger a Single-Payer Public Option
Why Can't Democrats Talk Right?
A poll says that 67 percent of Americans don't understand Obama's healthcare plan. I'm one of them.
It's not because I don't pay attention. I'm a news junkie. Could it be that I'm an idiot? If my insurer offered psychiatric coverage I could afford to find out.
I'm pretty sure, though, that my friends are smart. I asked my publisher, who runs the oldest publisher of graphic novels in the U.S., whether he understood what Obama's "public option" was. He didn't. I asked a teacher, who earned a masters from an Ivy League school. She didn't either. I asked a bunch of political cartoonists. Neither did they.
Obama's attempt to reform healthcare is all but dead; his polls are dropping. How did Obama turn lemonade into battery acid? Obama PR flack David Alexrod tries to explain that "to make choices is to make some unhappy." GOP strategist Charles Black counters that the president's popularity and "good will" doesn't equate to support for "liberal policies."
I think they're both wrong. The collapse of ObamaCare is rooted in the problem described by the cognitive linguist George Lakoff: liberals do a crappy job of communicating to the public.
Speaking of which: what is/was this mysterious "public option"?
On the left, The Nation magazine says it's "designed around not making people change their healthcare if they like what they have." OK, so that's what it's not. What is it? "Instead, there will be rules that insurance companies have to follow to provide better care, and a health insurance exchange, including a public option, for people who don't have employer-provided care."
A public option is a public option is a public option. How helpful.
I rely on words to make a living. I've published 14 books. Some have even sold well. "Health insurance exchange"? WTF?
You know what I think? I think this is like that fairy tale about the emperor's new clothes. I think The Nation doesn't know what the "public option" is any more than the rest of us. They're just afraid to admit it.
On the right, The National Review says it's "a government-run insurance plan that will compete with private insurers." Compete how?
For a guy reputed to have a way with words, Obama isn't adding any clarity.
Since the left is talking gibberish, let's go with the conservative definition of Obama's "public option." According to the right, Obama wants to create a U.S. government-run insurance company—call it GuvCare—that competes against private insurers in the open marketplace. Again, I may be a moron. But common sense tells me that this GuvCare only makes sense, and will only ease the crisis of out-of-control healthcare costs, if it offers cheaper coverage than private companies. If that's the case, everyone will switch to GuvCare. Goodbye, Aetna. Ciao, HIP. Right?
Wrong, says the president. "Why would it drive insurance out of business?" Obama asked in May. "If private insurers say the marketplace provides the best quality health care, why is it the government, which they say can't run anything, suddenly is going to run them out of business? That's not logical."
Because, um, GuvCare would be cheaper? And if it's not cheaper, what's the point?
I don't think Obama knows what the "public option" is either. Either that, or he's lying. And he wants us to know he's lying.
Pretty dumb.
Lakoff believes the difference between the way liberals and conservatives communicate goes back to how they equate government to the family. Conservatives see the state as a "strict father"—tough love, bear the consequences of your decisions—whereas liberals prefer the "nurturant parent model"—non-judgmental parents who help their kids out of a jam.
I think that's half the picture.
The GOP is effective despite its inherent demographic disadvantages, such as the fact that there are more Democrats than Republicans. This is because conservatives know how to use complicated terms in order to obfuscate and simplistic ones to promote memes.
Consider the words and phrases used by the right to attack healthcare reform. "Death panels." "Rationing care." "Nazi." "Communist." "Socialist." Sure, they're false and nonsensical. (Nazism and Communism are diametrically opposed ideologies.) But those tag lines simple. There's no confusion. Everyone knows what they mean—or thinks they do.
Republicans deploy stripped-down phraseology to make unpopular concepts seem palatable: "Peacekeeper missile." "Shock and awe." "USA-Patriot Act." Go ahead, read my mail. Just don't call me unpatriotic!
Right-wingers use complicated terms in order to confuse. Torture becomes "enhanced interrogation techniques." Killing civilians is "collateral damage."
Democrats, on the other hand, use Republican rhetorical techniques against themselves.
It's truly baffling. Consider American liberals' preferred solution for healthcare: "single payer." It's been around for years. But what the hell is it?
"Single payer" sounds to me like "I have to pay." Which sucks. I already do that! But "single payer" actually refers to funding source—the government. But "single payer" is not socialized medicine, in which doctors become federal employees. Get it? Me neither.
Why not call it something simple, like "free healthcare"? Yeah, yeah, we'd pay through our taxes—but people understand "free." Free is easy. Free makes sense.
Alas, Democrats seem to be running a contest to be as confusing as possible. Now that the "public option" is dead (which is probably OK, given that it was non-existent), Democrats are pushing for something called a "healthcare trigger."
Huh?
Dems say the "trigger" isn't a death panel. Instead, private insurance companies would have to make their services cheaper within a certain number of years (say, five). If costs stayed high, the U.S. government would then create a...public option. (Unless Congress, feeding at the trough of insurance company lobbyist money, was persuaded to amend the law between now and then.)
"This is the best shot we've got for getting a public option," a House Democratic adviser told UPI. "It's better than nothing."
Actually, it's exactly the same as nothing. Except that nothing sounds better.
I understand "nothing."
(Ted Rall, President of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists, is author of the books "To Afghanistan and Back" and "Silk Road to Ruin.")
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
A poll says that 67 percent of Americans don't understand Obama's healthcare plan. I'm one of them.
It's not because I don't pay attention. I'm a news junkie. Could it be that I'm an idiot? If my insurer offered psychiatric coverage I could afford to find out.
I'm pretty sure, though, that my friends are smart. I asked my publisher, who runs the oldest publisher of graphic novels in the U.S., whether he understood what Obama's "public option" was. He didn't. I asked a teacher, who earned a masters from an Ivy League school. She didn't either. I asked a bunch of political cartoonists. Neither did they.
Obama's attempt to reform healthcare is all but dead; his polls are dropping. How did Obama turn lemonade into battery acid? Obama PR flack David Alexrod tries to explain that "to make choices is to make some unhappy." GOP strategist Charles Black counters that the president's popularity and "good will" doesn't equate to support for "liberal policies."
I think they're both wrong. The collapse of ObamaCare is rooted in the problem described by the cognitive linguist George Lakoff: liberals do a crappy job of communicating to the public.
Speaking of which: what is/was this mysterious "public option"?
On the left, The Nation magazine says it's "designed around not making people change their healthcare if they like what they have." OK, so that's what it's not. What is it? "Instead, there will be rules that insurance companies have to follow to provide better care, and a health insurance exchange, including a public option, for people who don't have employer-provided care."
A public option is a public option is a public option. How helpful.
I rely on words to make a living. I've published 14 books. Some have even sold well. "Health insurance exchange"? WTF?
You know what I think? I think this is like that fairy tale about the emperor's new clothes. I think The Nation doesn't know what the "public option" is any more than the rest of us. They're just afraid to admit it.
On the right, The National Review says it's "a government-run insurance plan that will compete with private insurers." Compete how?
For a guy reputed to have a way with words, Obama isn't adding any clarity.
Since the left is talking gibberish, let's go with the conservative definition of Obama's "public option." According to the right, Obama wants to create a U.S. government-run insurance company—call it GuvCare—that competes against private insurers in the open marketplace. Again, I may be a moron. But common sense tells me that this GuvCare only makes sense, and will only ease the crisis of out-of-control healthcare costs, if it offers cheaper coverage than private companies. If that's the case, everyone will switch to GuvCare. Goodbye, Aetna. Ciao, HIP. Right?
Wrong, says the president. "Why would it drive insurance out of business?" Obama asked in May. "If private insurers say the marketplace provides the best quality health care, why is it the government, which they say can't run anything, suddenly is going to run them out of business? That's not logical."
Because, um, GuvCare would be cheaper? And if it's not cheaper, what's the point?
I don't think Obama knows what the "public option" is either. Either that, or he's lying. And he wants us to know he's lying.
Pretty dumb.
Lakoff believes the difference between the way liberals and conservatives communicate goes back to how they equate government to the family. Conservatives see the state as a "strict father"—tough love, bear the consequences of your decisions—whereas liberals prefer the "nurturant parent model"—non-judgmental parents who help their kids out of a jam.
I think that's half the picture.
The GOP is effective despite its inherent demographic disadvantages, such as the fact that there are more Democrats than Republicans. This is because conservatives know how to use complicated terms in order to obfuscate and simplistic ones to promote memes.
Consider the words and phrases used by the right to attack healthcare reform. "Death panels." "Rationing care." "Nazi." "Communist." "Socialist." Sure, they're false and nonsensical. (Nazism and Communism are diametrically opposed ideologies.) But those tag lines simple. There's no confusion. Everyone knows what they mean—or thinks they do.
Republicans deploy stripped-down phraseology to make unpopular concepts seem palatable: "Peacekeeper missile." "Shock and awe." "USA-Patriot Act." Go ahead, read my mail. Just don't call me unpatriotic!
Right-wingers use complicated terms in order to confuse. Torture becomes "enhanced interrogation techniques." Killing civilians is "collateral damage."
Democrats, on the other hand, use Republican rhetorical techniques against themselves.
It's truly baffling. Consider American liberals' preferred solution for healthcare: "single payer." It's been around for years. But what the hell is it?
"Single payer" sounds to me like "I have to pay." Which sucks. I already do that! But "single payer" actually refers to funding source—the government. But "single payer" is not socialized medicine, in which doctors become federal employees. Get it? Me neither.
Why not call it something simple, like "free healthcare"? Yeah, yeah, we'd pay through our taxes—but people understand "free." Free is easy. Free makes sense.
Alas, Democrats seem to be running a contest to be as confusing as possible. Now that the "public option" is dead (which is probably OK, given that it was non-existent), Democrats are pushing for something called a "healthcare trigger."
Huh?
Dems say the "trigger" isn't a death panel. Instead, private insurance companies would have to make their services cheaper within a certain number of years (say, five). If costs stayed high, the U.S. government would then create a...public option. (Unless Congress, feeding at the trough of insurance company lobbyist money, was persuaded to amend the law between now and then.)
"This is the best shot we've got for getting a public option," a House Democratic adviser told UPI. "It's better than nothing."
Actually, it's exactly the same as nothing. Except that nothing sounds better.
I understand "nothing."
(Ted Rall, President of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists, is author of the books "To Afghanistan and Back" and "Silk Road to Ruin.")
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
Labels: Healthcare
posted by Ted Rall at
3:37 PM
46 Comments:
As long as the Left doesn't burn down churches this time, I'm optimistic.
"Yes We Can" was a brilliant phrase. How come suddenly the Democrats have lost that skill level of communication?
Too true. ***sigh***
The problem here, folks, is that universal health care and "health insurance companies" cannot exist in the same universe. Obama is trying, in vain, to make them exist in the same time-space continuum. It cannot be done.
For example, in Canada, "health insurance companies" don't exist. That's because they have universal health care.
If anyone is confused about the term "universal health care", then let me simplify it for you. It is communicated by the slogan:
MEDICARE FOR ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Susan,
Medicare does coexist with private insurance companies. The government writes rules and sets prices and then it has private insurance companies administer Medicare payments.
Insurance companies charge the government a hefty fee to do something trivial. Their computers make payment decisions automatically based on government regulations. Why can't the government get its own computers and cut taxpayers a break?
Government providing services is socialism and bad. Governement paying private comanies to provide services is entrepreneursip and good. Go figure?
In reply to Susan Stark's comment:
In fact insurance companies do exist in the Medicare world. A little background: Medicare is broken up into 4 regions (or jurisdictions as they are called). Each jurisdiction is contractually managed by a PRIVATE insurace company. Jurisdiction A is controlled by NHIC, Inc., B is controlled by Administar, C is Cigna, and D is controlled by Noridian. They are the bureaucrats that everyone is afraid of the making of health care decisions. Even in a goverment controlled heatlh care solution (which I highly favor!), all offices and actions will be outsourced!!! But maybe, we would have the option to bitch to a senator or two to have our health 'decisions' overruled and allow us to live even though it may not be finacally prudent...
Nazism and Communism are diametrically opposed ideologies
Thank you, Ted.
Susan, yes, Medicare for all! And let the morons shout "Git yer government outta my Medicare!
In Canada health insurance companies still exist but on the margins.
1. Travel insurance to pay for medical costs when traveling aboard.
2. Insurance to pay dental and drug benefits.
3. Coverage to provide better hospital facilities, a semi-private room. Usually rolled into group coverage.
Many Canadians are covered by group plans for 2 & 3 in the same way that many Americans have employer provided health insurance. Drug and dental costs are easier to predict for underwriters with few wide swings in costs as when a healthy person is hit by a bus. For the really expensive medications there is in Ontario a provincial program you have to apply for, that pays for drugs exceeding C$90 a quarter.
In Canada you can get by with no insurance beyond OHIP unless you visit the US. Then travel insurance to pay for the most expensive medical care in the world is a necessity.
Nazism and Communism are diametrically opposed ideologies.
They're not, unless you force the political field into a unidimensional model. They were adversaries in the 30s, that's true.
Nazism and Communism are diametrically opposed ideologies.
The only problem with this statement is the tense. "Are" should have been "was."
Nazism and Communism, as terms, are both 20th century artifacts; their continual use is of limited utility.
One was totalitarian capitalism, and the other was totalitarian socialism. And of course they were diametrically opposed--their market systems were completely incompatible. They literally couldn't exist on the same planet.
But I'm more interested in hearing about your vision of the "free market," Incitatus.
The confusion about ObamaCare, stems from the fact, that the health care "reform" is already agreed upon in advance between Obama and the insurance/pharma/medico complex. What this corporate complex wants, that what the so called "reform" will give them.
The fix is already in and what we are having now is nothing but theatrics and make-believe bullshitting for public consumption.
The new health care system will be like the old system with minor cosmetic changes and more major give aways to insurance/pharma/medico corporations.
Obama and his team like the republicans are all bought and paid for by corporate elections contributions and the revolving doors.
The pathatic spiritless peformance by team Obama and the continuous shifting of positions is deliberate to confuse the public. That is a guy who was a college professor and is a gifted orator with mastery of the words and he cannot explain and define, once and for all, what he wants in a bill and what a publc option really is??!! Give me a break
Fascism (AKA Nazism).... The means of production owns the government.
Communism... The government owns the means of production.
It is exactly diametrically opposite in terms of political philosophy. When the commons are owned by someone other than the people, bad things happen. When the factories are owned by the government, bad things happen. That is the only way they are similar.
Let's try this: The Statists can have their own federal run, mandatory health program. The rest of us will opt out. Let freedom loving Americans purchase (or not purchase) our health insurance from any state. I'd like to do this for almost every other federal program as well, starting with Social Security. You Statists can tax the hell out of each other and go to your DMV/Post Office run medical facility. You Statists are always so eager to drag everyone else into your schemes. Leave the rest of us alone.
"The problem here, folks, is that universal health care and "health insurance companies" cannot exist in the same universe."
This is empirically false. Private health insurance companies exist in most industrialized countries that have universal health care. Germany has 100 private health insurance companies, for example.
As for Shady's idea: This already exists...again in most countries with universal health care systems, like Japan, Italy, Switzerland and Germany.
Shady, you'd have the option to opt out simply by not using your health care benefits. I listened to my right wing republican father gripe constantly about all kinds of programs, until he was forced into early retirement, systematically figured out how much he could make a week without losing his unemployment benefits, then cashed in on Social Security and uses his medicare for health insurance.
Talk all you want, at the end of the day, you are the one that wants free stuff without paying for it.
This country is stupid, I have to chose between "wrong" and "incompetent." . . .*sigh*
Shady Pines, you have nothing to worry about. The Democrats have no intention of putting the system you describe in place.
You can keep your shitty, rationed, for-profit, corporate insurance or remain uninsured.
Your "choice" will remain intact.
shady said:
"You Statists can tax the hell out of each other and go to your DMV/Post Office run medical facility. You Statists are always so eager to drag everyone else into your schemes. Leave the rest of us alone."
Choose your leviathan.
A)The one we have zero possibility of affecting
------------or-------------
B)The one we have a little possibility of affecting
Anarchy will come one day, don't worry. But as long as capitalism continues to subsidize its own sham existence, we'll have to put up with one leviathan or another.
Sure, Shady, as long as you agree not to drive on our highways or use our postal services.
Your definition of fascism (AKA Nazism) is incorrect. Facism is when the private sector is run by the government (See GM). Communism there is no private sector.
Sure, Shady, as long as you agree not to drive on our highways or use our postal services.
I rarely use the post office because there service sucks so bad. I'd like to see the post office loose it's monopoly on first class mail. As for the highways, this is a valid function of the federal government because it promotes commerce. IF the highway system was run like the current health care system, you could only drive on highways in your state. Ask yourself why the federal government doesn't allow anyone to purchase health insurance from any state? It would cost the federal government almost nothing to at least try it.
You gotta hand it to Aggie Gal: Her revisionism is pretty gutsy.
I don't have the balls to just make up a meaning for a word.
Shady-
I actually kind of agree with you - lets give people like you a place to live under the system you claim to want.
I give you six months living in that place under that system before you're BEGGING to come back here.
I actually kind of agree with you - lets give people like you a place to live under the system you claim to want.
I give you six months living in that place under that system before you're BEGGING to come back here.
It's called social democracy, and the place exists: Denmark.
I'd only be begging to come back because of the weather. Meanwhile, I'd enjoy a better standard of living than Americans have.
As for the highways, this is [sic] a valid function of the federal government because it promotes commerce.
Whoa, you just conceded that the federal government has a valid purpose. And, if this is a democracy, we get to decide what that purpose is. This could be dangerous for your position if the rabble got it into their heads that the purpose of government should be to promote the welfare of its citizenry.
Ask yourself why the federal government doesn't allow anyone to purchase health insurance from any state?
Uhm, could it be the influence of the health insurance companies who have their markets locked up? That would be my guess.
Aggie Gal's spot on when it comes to the definition of Fascism. Aggie Dude's also completely right about the coexistence of private insurers (and private healthcare) in Germany. They also coexist in less wealthy Latin America. The quality of service of government provided health-care varies between these two geographies, to put it mildly.
It's up to you to imagine what kind of service you'll get from Obamacare. One thing you'll certainly not get is doctors as federal employees, that's for sure.
Democrats can't talk right because 75% of them are right wing pro-corporate fuckwads.
And of the remaining 25%, most of those are liberals. And Phil Ochs had liberals pegged when he said:
"In every political community there are varying shades of political opinion. One of the shadiest of these is the liberals. An outspoken group on many subjects. Ten degrees to the left of center in good times. Ten degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally."
Incitatus, you're right about not having doctors as federal employees, and I don't think I'd want that either. Just like I don't really want farmers as federal employees, even though I accept that I need to eat food to survive. The problem is that the private sector is not doing a reasonable job of managing health care in the United States, unlike the agrifood industry, which for all my criticisms of it, generates enormous amounts of affordable food -and for only a minimal increase in price, exceptionally high quality, nutritious food.
Therefore it is incumbent upon the government, based on its charge to promote the general welfare, to insist that the private sector do a better job. Honestly? I think Obamacare is a lousy option, but it's a testament to how rotten the corporate capitalist system has gotten, as well as how rotten the political system has gotten, that this is our option.
Like I said, choosing between "wrong" and "incompetent".....most people choose "wrong" as long as it's competently wrong. When wrong is incompetent, then we get Democrats (less wrong, but extremely incompetent).
Aggie Gal's spot on when it comes to the definition of Fascism.
Wrong. Let's take Nazi Germany as an example. In the early '30s, did the Nazi party control the international capitalist interests that made Germany's rise possible? Many of the firms who financed Hitler's rise were American. I'd hardly say he controlled them.
Fascism was the collusion of capitalist/corporate interests and totalitarian government. Each sector had its domain. Hitler (unlike Franco) upset the balance and destroyed the system. You could argue that Germany was no longer fascist by 1940. (But I wouldn't make that argument. And I wouldn't because I believe that the Nazi government/capitalist partnership would have again stabilized if Germany had won the war.)
As I've said before, the term "fascism" is historical. The movement, conservative in nature, was a backlash against the Soviet's early success. Again, I reiterate, the word "fascism" is of limited use in our post-cold war age--because so few understand history.
Shady wrote:
"I rarely use the post office because their service suck and bad"
___________________________________
This extremely unfair and incorrect statement.
I have been using the US mail for 45 years and never a letter was lost or delayed.
If a letter is sent from cost to cost, some times it will arrive in 3 dayes and sometimes in two days.
It seems Shady is so happy with the looting and theft done by Wall St., insurance/pharma/hospital companies and the defense companies and the almost trillion dollars spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and found nothing to bitch about except the poor US Mail.
Synic,
It's interesting to hear an employee defend it. Maybe things have gotten better since Bukowski's Post Office.
But I must agree. The USPS's prices, dependability and speed are excellent.
I have minor complaints, but I use the USPS all the time, and it never fails me.
When I was younger, I did a lot of "mail art," and the USPS even faithfully delivered a piece of toast with an address and stamp on it...
Grouchy -
You might wanna do a re-read, there. I'm in favor of giving people like SHADY a place where they can live under the system they claim to want- because once they do I give them six months before they chage their tune and are begging to come back. I've come to the conclusion that the only way most of them will see what a massive fail their ideas are is to force them to live the consequences of those ideas themselves.
I'm all for social democracy, and were I a single, non-family man I would've left for Denmark long ago.
Grouchy,
I am not an employee of the USPS. I am a retired engineer and what I wrote was an honest opinion of the USPS.
I am puzzled about the crap people say about the USPS.
All my friends and relatives share my opinion and as you said there were minor mishaps here and there, but were very very few and very very far between, like a letter go to your neighbor mail box in the mail room of a huge apartment complex or vice versa.
Honestly? I think Obamacare is a lousy option, but it's a testament to how rotten the corporate capitalist system has gotten, as well as how rotten the political system has gotten, that this is our option.
Aggie,
If by "corporate capitalist" you mean healthcare insurers in cahoots with government and trying to buy political favors, we're in total accord. How anyone can mistake that for a free market in healthcare is what puzzles me.
Sorry, Anon 9/11/09 1:27 PM.
I misread that message as being written by Shady, not to Shady.
Pick any stupid "name" under the identity bar and stick with it. I don't understand why people stay anonymous--unless they want to troll.
I post under just one name, and retain my privacy while still being able to carry on a continuing dialogue...
And sorry to you, Synic. I misread your post as well.
As I've said before, the term "fascism" is historical. The movement, conservative in nature, was a backlash against the Soviet's early success.
Mussolini, whose father was a Commie, started out as a Socialist militant. You might as well say Fascism was a breakaway movement from Marxist Socialism (just as Bakuninist Anarchism is a breakaway from early 19th century Socialism). The rise of fascism and its penchant for violence (just like their Bolshevik counterpart) was certainly used by industry bosses for pushing around Socialist union leaders, that is a fact.
Point is: Fascism allowed somewhat free markets (just like somewhat free markets exist in all Western European social democracies). It wasn't a philosophical tenet, though: total state power was.
In the 17th century, Catholic and Protestant potentates washed Europe in blood. You could hardly claim they were polar opposites, from the vantage point of a Muslim, nevertheless.
Bukowski never (as far as I recall--and I'm a huge Bukowksi fan) actually denigrates the USPS. What he hated were his supervisors, because they were brutal, intolerant, slave-driving sacks of shit. As a USPS employee I can honestly say that the workers take their jobs very seriously, and that the supervisory class are the dregs who were too lazy to work and, thus, ended up in management. We do just fine avoiding them and, daily, getting the jobs done quite efficiently despite their almost constant attempts at interference.
Mussolini, whose father was a Commie, started out as a Socialist militant. You might as well say Fascism was a breakaway movement from Marxist Socialism (just as Bakuninist Anarchism is a breakaway from early 19th century Socialism).
I'm more interested in looking at the actual state and economic structures, rather than one man's background, or the particular propaganda that one cabal used.
You're not actually going to say that Fascism was a breakaway movement from Marxist Socialism because you know that the only evidence you'll find is state propaganda. And even the most uneducated person knows that Fascist propaganda isn't to be taken at face value.
Point is: Fascism allowed somewhat free markets (just like somewhat free markets exist in all Western European social democracies). It wasn't a philosophical tenet, though: total state power was.
First of all, your continual, religious obsession with the mythical "free market" is difficult to ignore. Controlled markets have been a fixture of all post-industrial economies. If you're calling for a return to a pre-industrial way of life, please have the guts to say so. (You might find support here.)
Second, Fascism did not have a consistent or coherent philosophical doctrine. It was a movement of opportunism. So the lack of any explicit tenant means nothing. But one defining feature of all forms of Fascism was the opposition to Communism. The corporate interests certainly didn't care what Mussolini told the rabble--though he did come around to actually encourage a weird form of corporate idolatry.
I'm not trying to make any particular point about Marxism here, but I believe, that if you look at history as a whole, its pretty clear that Fascism was swept in to power to protect capitalism from (perceived or real) socialist threats--remember, the world order was is crisis following the events of 1929.
You have to look at how the world reacted to the Spanish Civil War to understand Fascism (and the rest of 20th century history).
Hemlock,
I mentioned Bukowski with my tongue in cheek. If memory serves, I think you're right about his book.
Regardless of what's going on behind the curtain, I'm quite pleased with the service you provide. Just please don't shoot us. (Sorry, I couldn't resist another joke.)
To Grouchy and his Denmark:
I sometimes do work for for a doctor and partner in a private hospital in Denmark and I can tell you that business is booming for him. Nobody wants to end up worked on in a sub-standard state hospital so those who can buy insurance that allows them to use private care.
Also. . . Denmark's brightest have been leaving the country in droves due to the horrendous tax burden that goes to pay for poor services administered by surly Gov. workers. The place is not paradise but perhaps you did not hear that because Danes are not generally whiners (plus they are few).
I sometimes do work for for a doctor and partner in a private hospital in Denmark and I can tell you that business is booming for him. Nobody wants to end up worked on in a sub-standard state hospital so those who can buy insurance that allows them to use private care.
Also. . . Denmark's brightest have been leaving the country in droves due to the horrendous tax burden that goes to pay for poor services administered by surly Gov. workers. The place is not paradise but perhaps you did not hear that because Danes are not generally whiners (plus they are few).
I've been to Denmark, and I have Danish friends, so I could offer anecdotal stories to counter yours.
And I acknowledge that the Danes aren't "whiners," as you put it, and, as I've said before, I remain skeptical about "happiness" polls. That's why I pay most attention to the hard data: By almost all metrics, the people of Denmark (and other social democracies) enjoy higher standards of living than Americans.
Grouchy,
Fascism did have a few philosophical tenets, the guiding had of the State being the more prominent. Opposition to liberal democracy was also a common theme, just like opposition to Bolshevism, but you won't hear that from leftist propaganda.
You have to look at how the world reacted to the Spanish Civil War to understand Fascism (and the rest of 20th century history).
The world reacted in different ways, supporting all the different sides - you don't think there were only two, right? And both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany used it as a proxy war for rehearsal purposes, or to sell weapons and make a nice profit. I'm not really sure what you mean here.
Fascism did have a few philosophical tenets, the guiding had of the State being the more prominent. Opposition to liberal democracy was also a common theme, just like opposition to Bolshevism, but you won't hear that from leftist propaganda.
"The Doctrine of Fascism" ("La dottrina del fascismo"), signed by Mussolini 1932 (arguably the year Fascism really went global), says:
"Fascism [is] the precise negation of that doctrine which formed the basis of the so-called Scientific or Marxian Socialism."
Does that count as a tenant?
Soviet Union and Nazi Germany used it as a proxy war for rehearsal purposes...
Exactly. It was a rehearsal for the 2nd World War. Look how the powers aligned themselves.
Notice how the conversation is about fascism, communism and World War II, and not about health care in the United States? Who do you think this benefits?
Notice how the conversation is about fascism, communism and World War II, and not about health care in the United States? Who do you think this benefits?
Excellent point. And I'd barely call my dialogue with Incitatus productive on any level. Neither he nor I are ignorant, and I don't think we're going to change each others' minds about anything, let alone health care.
Pragmatically, I support single-payer, because a mountain of evidence supports this option as being cheaper and conductive of better health for the general population.
I suppose he supports deregulation and the "free market" and doesn't particularly care if universal health insurance is achieved. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Incitatus.)
Since "equality," universal coverage and the general well-being of society aren't his objectives, that doesn't really leave us anything to talk about...
Notice how the conversation is about fascism, communism and World War II, and not about health care in the United States? Who do you think this benefits?
Similarly, I read, the House passed a resolution of disapproval of Joe Wilson's yell on a 240-179 vote that was mostly along party lines.
Fuck, I hate the Democrats.
"Since "equality," universal coverage and the general well-being of society aren't his objectives, that doesn't really leave us anything to talk about..."
This is an important point, Grouchy. Nobody is willing to call people out on a national scale for what this is: This is a normative argument. It's about sets of values. Republicans/Conservatives always talk about their values and their principles, but what actually ARE those values and principles? You can't debate normative arguments with empirical evidence, like how WELL a single payer system works, because to them the single payer system is a threat to their values, which are normative -not empirical.
So the issue is challenging the morality of their so-called values, putting them up for public rejection, and moving on.
Healthcare comes down to two questions: One normative, and one empirical.
NORMATIVE: Do you believe that everybody should have access to both preventative medical care AND treatment of existing conditions -that health care is a right?
EMPIRICAL: What is the most efficient, cost effective way of delivering high quality health coverage and care to everyone?
There is very little actual argument about which is best, the facts speak for themselves, everything else is just poisoning the well.
Anybody who answered "No" to question one needs to be removed from the discussion of question number 2, because their motives are to defeat the process, not actually benefit the construction of a working plan.
This is how Republicans act ALL THE TIME, and they are effective, because they are authoritative. If Obama came out and said "Access to health care is a human right, and it HAS TO be done," some people would bitch and moan, but everyone would fall in line at the end of the day.
We didn't handle ending slavery or segregation by legitimizing an immoral, greedy, and unscrupulous set of values that harmed an entire segment of the human population, we simply insisted it was a question of right and wrong. And those who thought it was wrong won.
That's what we need to do with health care, and renewable energy, and climate issues. We need to stop acting like the people standing in the way have some legitimate claim. It is NOT acceptable to believe that people don't deserve health care if they don't make enough money to pay for it, that they're not intrinsically valuable enough as human beings to be healthy. It is under the provision of "LIFE, liberty, and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" to be able to have access to modern medical care guaranteed by the constitution.
Anyone standing in the way of that needs to be removed from the discussion of how best to get it done. Humanity has already chosen to get it done, we need to stop arguing about 18th Century philosophy and get into the 21st Century on this and every other issue, period.
P.S. I hate Democrats too.
Anybody who answered "No" to question one needs to be removed from the discussion of question number 2, because their motives are to defeat the process, not actually benefit the construction of a working plan.
Actually, their plan is use "reform" rhetoric to try to slide in pro-industry policy that will make the situation worse. Evidence: the Senate plan these crooks unveiled this week...
Post a Comment
<< Home