At Unqualified Offerings, blogger Thoreau has a note that says, as I read it, that were we able to build a free market for health care from the dust of the earth and first principles, Awesome!, but as we cannot, and as the current soi-disant-mais-pas-tellement system of "private insurance" with government plans for the very poor and the elderly exists, it is conceivable that some reform could burble up that would create a modestly more robust public sector, lower some barriers that currently prevent many millions of people from receiving adequate coverage or care, and marginally improve the status quo even if it falls short of the ideal. This is very reasonable, with the exception of the very long caveat that I will write in all the subsequent paragraphs of this post. Kevin Carson, our favorite mutualist, shows up early in the comments and says something sensible. Shortly thereafter, something called "The Angry Optimist" appears and total hilarity ensues as he cavils, wails, moans, falls writhing on the floor, berates heaven, speaks in tongues, swallows swords, levitates, rends his garments, weeps, rails, anathematizes, coruscates, has visions, and then accuses everyone else of "emotionalism." QED. Exit. As fine an example of the taxonomy of Blog as you will find.
Well, Even the Libertarian Friedrich Hayek™ believed that there was such a thing as a reasonable provision for public health, although to be fair, I was recently taking a shit and flipping through The Road to Serfdom, which I keep on the tank along with Freemasonry for Dummies, a Stephen Baxter paperback, a book of daily AA affirmations, and Left Behind: Assassins: Assignment—Jerusalem, Target—Antichrist, and it occurred to me that, properly understood, Serfdom should be read in the same vein as one reads Nineteen-eighty-four. Or 2001. Or Revelations. Not a criticism--I am a fan of "speculative fiction"--but a critique, perhaps. In any case, Even the Libertarian Friedrich Hayek™ believed that there was such a thing as a reasonable provision for public health, and given such illustrious ancestry, we're obliged to take arguments that public health options traduce the fundamental spirit of liberty with the same seriousness that we would take arguments that Arlen Specter, the Democratic Senator from Dorian Gray's closet, plans personally to garrote Grandma in her sleep, shake infants to death, poison the wells, etc.
But no, the usually useful idiots are engaged in their usually useful idiocy, as Washington stages another shell-game debate in the name of transferring more private wealth to the state-partnered corporate class. Headlines warning that the so-called public plan may be "dropped" entertain the same fallacy as The Obama's liberal supporters engage--those on the left-hand side of the idiot corpus as it were. They assume that there exists a "public plan" to be dropped. Meanwhile, the rightards engage in some supremely amusing agitprop, creating a fictional groundswell of chimerical grassroots opposition to a proposed system of socialized medicine that was never really proposed. The whole thing is a sham, and in the end the circular genius of state capital will again reward itself by reforming a system in favor of the system already in place. The rules of this game are simple, and I refer everyone once more to The Ratchet Effect.
This is the sort of literary-cosmic irony that I love. The human boot stepping on the human face forever became a series of Roman-ish border wars by a great, pseudocapitalist hegemon seeking to spread its ideology of democracy, whiskey, sexy to the world's benighted peoples. The Road to Serfdom did not run through cozy, consensus-socialist post-war Europe, but through an increasingly Tsarist America, which has succeeded in turning its lower 95% into a legit peasant class through false-credit-ownership residential tenancy and a variety of other financial and political scams, from the Ballot Initiative to the low introductory APR. It is the most genius system of concentrated ownership in the history of human political organization--formerly, a serf at least knew he was a serf. When "health care reform" means a mandate for purchase of at-minimum high-deductible insurance, or some similar transparent mechanism for moving dollars in the usual direction, everyone will claim victory, mirabile dictu, the righteous victorious, the villains defeated, and the Dr. Ken Melanis of the world still pulling three million a year.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Ever Thus
Labels:
Democracy,
Economy,
Health Care,
The Soviet States of America
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
When I heard "ratchet effect" I assumed you'd be linking to Bob Higgs. I think its funny since so many more righties think the Overton window only moves left. Do any of you think Roe v Wade is going to be overturned or that gay marriage isn't an inevitability?
You're shitting me if you think the 94th percentile in the U.S is being reduced to peasantry status. I think the international Maoists are closer to it when they say Amerikkka is characterized by a labor aristocracy.
The whole thing is a sham, and in the end the circular genius of state capital will again reward itself by reforming a system in favor of the system already in place.
Exactly, and the right-wing town hall protesters have done Max Baucus and Barack Obama and their pals in Big Pharma a favor by making the whole process appear much more democratic than it really is. We're led to believe that there's some sort of titanic struggle for the hearts and minds of the American people, a struggle between the thugs of SEIU and the followers of Glen Beck, and that the policy we eventually end up with depends on who "wins" this "debate."
Nonsense. Max Baucus was against any kind of "public option" (and Obama was never very much for it) long before people started screaming that it would kill Grandma. Now they both get to pretend they're responding to the public will. The right-wing-craziest of Americans spoke, and the government listened, and what more do you want from Democracy, American-style?
TGGP, in the Ratchet Effect you can substitute "authoritarian" for right wing and Republican and "authoritarian accommodationists" for Democratic and left wing.
The Republicans are no more right wing than the Democrats are left wing, in my estimation. They're tar pits for people who have some of the temperament that bears left or right.
I had known that there was stupidity in the Left Behind series, but that title (which is real!!) is shocking.
The plot description on Wikipedia is also particularly well-done.
By shocking, I assume you mean awesome.
The whole thing is a sham, and in the end the circular genius of state capital will again reward itself by reforming a system in favor of the system already in place. The rules of this game are simple, and I refer everyone once more to The Ratchet Effect.
But but but... Our betters have to do something for us, right?
I want my pony!
I was always too scared to bring a LB novel and anything by Stephen Baxter into too close proximity, for fear they would annihilate one another in a burst of hard radiation.
Also, wouldn't premillenial dispensationalists know that any attempt to assassinate the Antichrist would be doomed to fail, since his role is foreordained by the aphasic writers of Scofield Bible footnotes? Never mind. The title is indeed awesome, though it looks prettier in the original Japanese.
Oh, healthcare? Meh. Any actually beneficial reform would require the Greatest Nation on Earth(TM) to be able to at least equal Germany's regulatory regime, which is simultaneously far too hard, and would turn us into a communist hellhole like Switzerland. Better for us to be killed by existing private death panels now, then be sentenced to a lifetime of unwashed lederhosen.
Shocking can lead to awesome. It's got more colons than a would-be intellectual undergrad's senior project. This Is The Title Of My Paper Colon This Is The Other Title Of My Paper
all we do is hiss.
Rowan, ha! In grad school we always joked that the title of every paper we wrote could be reduced to "(Attempt at) Clever Title: Something Much Less Clever that Explains the Title."
Concerning the reactionary nature of speculative fiction: it was ever thus:
"All this visionary fiction seems to me to have a great deal in common. Utopian fiction has been predominantly reactionary in one form or another (as well as being predominantly dull) since it began. Most of it warns the world of 'decadence' in its contemporaries and the alternatives are usually authoritarian and sweeping -- not to say simple-minded."
"Until Wells -- the most talented, original and intelligent writer of his kind -- almost all sf had devoted itself to attacks on 'decadence' and military unpreparedness, urging our leaders to take a stronger moral line and our armies to re-equip and get better officers. By and large this was the tone of much of the sf which followed Wells, from Kipling's effective but reactionary With the Night Mail and As Easy as ABC (paternalistic aerial controllers whose rays pacify 'the mob') to stories by John Buchan, Michael Arlen, William Le Quex, E. Phillips Oppenheim and hundreds of others who predominantly were following Kipling in warning us of the dangers of socialism, mixed marriages, free love, anarchist plots, Zionist conspiracies, the yellow peril and so on and so on. Even Jack London wasn't what one might call an all-round libertarian any more than Wells was when he toyed with his ideas of an elite corps of 'samurai' who were actually not a great deal different to how Soviet Communist Party members saw themselves, or were described in official fiction and propaganda. The quasi-religious nature of sf (which I describe in a collection of pre-WWI sf Before Armageddon) was producing on the whole quasi-religious substitutes (a variety of authoritarian socialist and fascist theories). A few attacked the theories of the emerging dictators (Murray Constantine's Swastika Night, 1937, seemed to think Christianity could conquer Hitler but is otherwise a pretty incisive projection of Nazism several hundred years in the future). By and large the world we got in the thirties was the world the sf writers of the day hoped we would have -- 'strong leaders' reshaping nations. The reality of these hero-leaders was not, of course, entirely what had been visualised -- Nuremberg rallies and Strength Through Joy, perhaps -- but Kristellnacht and gas ovens seemed to go a bit too far."
Starship Stormtroopers (1978)
Michael Moorcock
F A Hayek eventually got his longed for strong leader reshaping society in the form of Margaret Thatcher who had to deploy thousands of riot police onto the streets of the UK during the 1980s in order to fulfill his vision. He also fawned over Queen Elizabeth II and hankered after a Lordship for himself (but had to make do with a lesser honour to his chagrin).
Dan - it's called journal article emulation. And I'm sure there is an elaboraate bit of quackery in the psych field that can explain it more in depth. [Sorry... totally missed the psych bashing the other day and felt the need]
One thing to note about that New York Times article is that it imparts no useful information whatsoever, and actually I'm probably stupider for having read it.
And the Times is one of our good papers.
In my idle moments, I often wonder if maybe the newspapers are failing because everything they publish is pointless and awful.
"It is the most genius system of concentrated ownership in the history of human political organization--formerly, a serf at least knew he was a serf."
That about sums it up. Marx was on to this also...funny how so called classic liberals keep finding this stuff out.
In my idle moments, I often wonder if maybe the newspapers are failing because everything they publish is pointless and awful.
Isn't that the recipe for success? I think they're just being outcompeted by lower-brow outlets which appeal to the functionally illiterate.
I normally like to take on the role of cynic proclaiming abandon all hope of progress ye who enter here, but I'll put on my optimist Whig history hat and take on Al Schumann's adapted terms to argue that Higgs and Balko shouldn't worry. This country has had Presidents who smashed opposition newspapers and arrested or tried to arrest Congresscritters and Supreme Court justices who got in their way (Lincoln) and locked up people for distributing leaflets opposing the draft (Wilson). Now there is no draft. Does anyone think it will be brought back in their lifetimes and aforementioned authoritarian measures revived? Would a Daniel Ellsberg have been possible then? Hell, doesn't the demise of the Nixon administration represent a great victory of the press over the executive? Jeffrey Hart's change of focus can be considered a rearguard defense on the part of the right after lost territory, something the Rev. Dabney was familiar with back in the 19th century and can be seen today in incidents like the Ricci case where conservatives try to present themselves as properly adhering to a previous generation's liberalism.
It seems I've gotten off-track of authoritarianism and onto other forms of social liberalism on which there is agreed "leftward" movement. Back to scary men in uniform with guns. As mentioned, we've abolished the draft. In WW2 we dropped two nuclear bombs and firebombed a number of cities (as well sticking civilians in camps just for being Japanese). And we certainly treated the Axis better than we did the Indians. John Walker Lindh would not still be alive if we were operating under the Lieber Code.
Maybe we eased up abroad, but we're turning our own police into unchecked paramilitaries right? Lethal police shootings are down 33 percent since 1968. We've got required Miranda warnings, defense attorneys for the indigent since Gideon and the exclusionary rule has been binding on all states since Mapp vs Ohio.
Maybe I'm reaching too far back in history because now (more than ever!) Everything is Different This Time. So when did the change occur and everything start going downhill?
Hm. How many people are imprisoned today compared to 1968? How many per hundred thousand? How long is the average term? Etc.
Confusing procedural changes for improvements, let alone for progress, is unbecoming on you, TGGP. Come back to us.
Not to mention that the removal of the draft has only made the military less democratic an institution (not that it was a model before) and our citizenry less invested in ending any of our numerous wars.
Of course, it's my opinion that no procedural change is intrinsically progressive. We may weigh them on this or that effect, as TGGP has, but there's no reason to believe that change must be brought about for the right reasons.
What the hell does "a free market for health care" actually fucking mean? You get to decide how much your life is worth to you? I mean, seriously, as far as value preferences go, not fucking dying is about as inelastic as it gets. And it's not like there are any substitutes either...
"OK, I can't afford the triple bypass surgery I need to save my life. What can I get for 300 bucks?"
"Well, a tonsillectomy is usually $499, but it's on special offer this week. You can get the tonsillectomy and a gastric band installed for only $299.99. It's a bargain!"
Dunc,
They're gonna kill that poor woman. Her life was in our hands, man!
@Dunc: "What the hell does "a free market for health care" actually fucking mean?"
Maybe something like this? As hard as the corporatists and statists try to kill "the market", yet still it lives. We're all Canadians now.
Maybe something like this? As hard as the corporatists and statists try to kill "the market", yet still it lives.
Awesome. I'm one my way over to the poor part of my northeastern US town right now. That working mother of three who might need surgery for her uterine fibroids? I'll tell her she can just roadtrip to goddamn Mexico. My own gold-plated employer-provided health insurance will easily cover my reconstructive surgery afterward.
Okay, you got me with the increased imprisonment, but the reduction in shootings is an actual outcome improvement rather than mere procedural. A lot of the increase in incarceration is due to a more punitive legal system, but that's relative to one that got more lax around the time crime shot up (don't have the figures in front of me, but arrest per crime and conviction per arrest both went down around the time of the procedural changes I mentioned before police developed workarounds and a broader political reaction occurred) and has made people hesitant to try that again. Of course, we can't just treat crime as endogenous since the war on drugs itself creates more criminals.
Other than police shootings, I can point to one other improvement in outcomes. The number of death sentences has been dropping and is now below below its level when it was re-introduced (I don't know what the numbers were right before it was temporarily abolished). My own state introduced a moratorium on the practice under Blagojevich's predecessor. And when we do kill people we do it painlessly with injections which, uh, is like putting lipstick on a hangman. Alright, I've been reduced to grasping at straws, we're all DOOMED!
Lethal injection is painless only for the viewer.
Be wary of innovations that claim to humanize death. They usually just make it easier to wage.
I'm sympathetic to your arguments, TGGP, but I suspect that by concentrating on the enforcement-crime rate relationship, you're ignoring a more important enforcement-violence relationship. As detailed in Chapter 4 of Miron, the contribution of drug prohibition to violence swamps all other factors.
I actually mentioned how the war on drugs creates criminals, and while that could be interpreted as meaning that it officially renders otherwise law-abiding drug users into lawbreakers, I meant to suggest that it supplies the profit motive behind a lot of violence.
glass accubrush dixon black wood 2 eneloop williams motorcycle rubber plus nostra 1999 of fruits http://www.centertodaydeals.tk
http://www.placesupershop.tk
Post a Comment