Yummy. My first bowl of shit.Yggie really ought to go into politics fer rizzle, because he seems to have distinct coprophiliac tendencies. "Health reform." What is that? To this imponderable the Donk answer is: anything and everything. Quite literally. So long as it comes out of a Donk congress. Now Yglesias is the sort of blurgher who's fond of hectoring far lefties and libertarianische types for their habit of speaking in generalities and idealities, ignoring the ol' salt-mine of practical politics. So one wonders how he can persist in being so blithely unconcerned with the actual content of the bill before him. Is it a cake, or is it a turd? Well, it's on a plate, isn't it? Are we gonna split hairs?
-Baltimore Mayor Carcetti, The Wire
For those of us who like Barack Obama on some level think single-payer health care would be best but impractical, then hoped for a system with a public option, but who are still enthusiastic about health reform that doesn’t include it, I think we’ve really reached a moment when it would be good to have Ted Kennedy around.
-Yglesias
Universal, tax-funded health coverage has been transmogrified through the usual Washingtonian alchemy into an insane mandate that uninsured individuals purchase, at great personal expense, extremely shitty insurance plans. There you have it. The federal government is going to force poor, underemployed people to spend thousands of dollars that they can ill afford to spend on consumer products offered by private corporations. I am sure that Yglesias et al. will have some very clever arguments about how this is ultimately good policy because it forces the irrational lower orders to invest in plans that will at least hedge against future catastrophe, you know, the sort of rational future-planning that poor morons don't usually make because fortuity failed to commend a Harvard education upon their beer-drinking souls. So it is worth reiterating: poor wage-earners cannot afford health insurance. That's why they don't buy it! Although it seems to us comfortable salarymen far more rational to pay a couple hundred bucks a month for minimal coverage just in case we get Ted Kennedy's brain cancer, it isn't an option for some people.
Point being, what you have here is a partisan hack endorsing a plan that does nearly the exact opposite of that which he claims to preferentially support, because his party, sort of, produced it. Instead of using public funds to provide direct subsidies of medical treatment, you have private wealth confiscated through the threat of legal sanction for the purpose of increasing the market penetration of private companies. You've replaced a program of individual welfare with a system of corporate welfare paid for by the very individuals whose economic status would make them the recipients of the individual welfare you claim to seek. Fuck the poor, so long as it reflects well on Barack Obama, his coattails, and our chances in 2010.
Meanwhile, all these kiddos flipped their buzzed heads when John Mackey wrote a one-off op-ed suggesting some half-assed private solutions to the lack of broad, national health coverage, even as they came to support not merely a privatized insurance provision, but a system of obligatory national consumption.
54 comments:
Here's the thing I find rather confusing: taxing the poor is not in the Democrats' best interest, electorally speaking. Yglesias and his vote-counting ilk should be able to realize this, but alas . . .
Forcing people to buy insurance in order to reduce the uninsured population is simply juking the stats.
Some of Mackey's solution made a sense, but the were dismissed as "betraying his liberal customer base" because they didn't provide an answer to the progressives "shut down" argument, which reads something like "If you can't provide the most expensive cutting edge treatment to every single person who needs it at no cost to them, it's both unfair and unacceptable!".
What are ya, fu@king Amish, ya don't wants the insurance?
In retrospect I really should have just stopped following the health care debate after http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2009/09/occams-butter-kife.html .
The best part of Matty's post is his touching faith in the adorable notion that, "on some level", Barack Obama really favors a single-payer system. Crackpot realism at its finest.
To the first comment; I just heard a caller on the radio correctly state that this bill might destroy the democratic party for 30 years. Maybe that's the point...
Every grouping of pols eventually obtains the Bill Kristol it deserves.
Yeah, I guess something like : "You're not dealing with morons here"
as a political group's life extends, the probability of "bill kristol" approaches 1.
i like it. may it long live as an internet meme.
Yglesias! That Yglesias!
Would you, could you eat this turd
If Obama gave the word?
I would not, could not eat this turd
Even if he gave the word.
Would you eat it on a plate
If Mattie were to masturbate?
I would not eat it on a plate
Where I come from, turds don't rate
Well, I'm no Dr. Seuss...fuck it, let's go bowling....
For the longest time, I wondered why Yglesias never seemed to come in for the sort of brutal treatment IOZ usually serves up to leading Donks. I even suspected that he might view the little shitbird favorably somehow.
The three posts about Yglesias all still on the main page here have made it worth the wait. Mwa ha ha.
"Is it a cake, or is it a turd? Well, it's on a plate, isn't it? Are we gonna split hairs?"
I gotta admit it caused a belly-laugh ... bet you loved typing it, didn't you ?
If McCain had been elected, he would have proposed exactly this Romneycare plan, and to play the game properly, the Dims would have had to shove in a puny Medicare "buy in" and a miniscule public option.
So, objectively speaking, this is powerful evidence against Muckfuck Piglesias' central claim, and only theme.
Where's Kevorkian when he's needed?
For a many years I was mistakenly calling the US corporatist state "fascism with elections".
But that was wrong, wrong, wrong.
In fascism, corporations are bitches of the state. Der "Leader" may have a favourite bitch-corporation (say, Krupp). But in the end, Krupp corporation does as told, or its factories are confiscated.
In corporatism however, the state is the bitch of the corporations. - As "healthcare reform" amply demonstrates.
Elections are the cornestone of the system. Because elections furnish the ruling class with the hirelings best fit at holding the sheeple down for corporate profit.
"Which of these assistants you prefer to hold you down while getting this probe inserted in your anus?"
The Cristians
Poor Yglesias.
Someone hand the harpoon to Queequeg, he'll lance that human boil known as The Great White Yglesias Whale.
My God, that's moose turd pie!
It's good though.
Aren't the plans heavily subsidized for anyone under some multiple of the poverty line?
oh, and PLEASE do not confused that with a Yglesias defense, becuase I want to roll him down a fucking hill covreed in glass and ebola.
I love ya and I think your right but dear lord you need a neologismectomy.
The term "corporatism" originally referred to conceiving of the body politic as, well, a body, with the various interest groups viewed as vital organs that must be harnessed together properly rather than as unavoidable imperfections marring the theoretical ideal of a democracy of selfless compatriots. The State is supposed to be the bitch of the corporations (of which we are all a part), just as a democratic government is to be the servant of the people.
I recall seeing some stats (more exact than these, but I'm too lazy to find them right now) that showed that a significant portion of the uninsured actually can afford it. They just rationally choose not to because it's bad deal. The reason to bring them into the system is because as young people they are to subsidize the old (and in turn be subsidized when they become old). The welfare state is not about the poor. Rather than the uninsured, I think people who already have insurance are a major target of reforms. Insurance is (stupidly) tied to employment and most people seem to hate that.
When you start wishing for Ted Kennedy you've not just consumed shit you've driven the car off the bridge into a river of it.
Democrats spent 40 years in the wilderness waiting for the lesser Kennedy to run for President and it looks as if they'll spend another 40 bemoaning his unwillingness.
Isn't this Health Care Bill basically a libertarian wet dream? It's kind of like Cato's social security privatization plan, which would've compelled everyone to sign up with government approved investment firms that would've in turn had "private accounts" into which everyone would've been compelled to pay.
The health care bill is the same thing. Why aren't libertarians cheering?
Efficiency and progress are ours once more!
"Why aren't libertarians cheering?"
Because there are many flavors of libertarians, and not all taste like Cato.
Yglesias is easy sport at this point. I'd prefer to see Monsieur Ioz take on the sainted Josh Marshall, a thinking man's Ariana Huffington, who's been running a series of absurd cries de coeur and putting pwogs on notice by invoking the dread specter of Nader. Amusing that the lesson drawn from that isn't that Democratic politicians should tend to the 6% or so of the American public that actually qualifies as respectably left, even as opposition from this exact group of people is on the verge of sinking this bill, turning the House over to RETHUGS, and turning Obama into Jimmy Carter in burnt cork fo' real.
Hedley Lamarr: This is the bill that will convert the State Hospital for the Insane into the William J. Le Petomane Memorial Gambling Casino for the Insane.
Governor William J. Le Petomane: Gentlemen! This bill will be a giant step forward in the treatment of the insane gambler.
Are you crazy? They'll never go for it. And then again they might. Those little red devils... they love toys!
Love Matty's intro parasentence, the sad decline of each subordinate clause. First he asserts policy kinship with Obama in thinking single-payer is "best", yet, though he does not explain (duh), "impractical".
Then he "hoped for", and now he's "still enthusiastic" about this trainwreck. That is a pretty heightened level of cluelessness.
You always knew the Democrats could figure out a way to fuck up a shit sandwich, and they go and give us Exhibit A. I mean, you have to try pretty hard to make the American health care system worse than it already is, especially with a huge electoral advantage, but goddamn if they aren't on the verge of doing it. People would literally be better off if they'd left it alone.
But they need to be seen making a deal, even if that deal is the negotiating equivalent of paying $100K for a Yugo from the scrapyard. Lieberman is a convenient foil, they just need the wrestling match to look like they're trying.
I hope Yglesias has to sign up for whatever these humps end up with.
Once again, you are entirely correct and this post could only be improved by once again comparing Yglesias to a "party bottom" who enjoys fisting and golden showers. Far be it from me to tell you how to blog, but I would wholeheartedly approve if you were to detail increasingly humiliating scenarios every time you write about our intrepid cub blogger.
explaining things to the youngs gets old, but, even though i was not yet 10, i can remember teddy kennedy running for POTUS back in the day.
Homer S: "Mondale to Hart: Where's the Beef?" Where's the Beef? Ha Ha. No wonder he won Minnesota.
IOZ: tell me someone else has forwarded you this gem from DailyKossssss:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/16/815429/-No-One-Is-Going-To-Save-You-Fools
It's going so well up until the end, and then ... "If you want to win, ORGANIZE." Ri-ight. Because you can create some vast organization of the underprivileged and ideal youth that (even if successful) won't become a massive power bloc in itself. Because you can subvert power to serve progressivism so, so well.
That dailykos poster is mildly amusing. As if privy to RAND secrets and the holy of the holies.
The absurd idea of imitating the Right's methodologies for the last 30 years, who in effect were imitating byzantine Stalinist tactics designed to gain power for the few. All those right wing boots on the ground have really gotten what they've wanted from their elected officials.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=404227395387111085#
Yglesias deserves a lot of credit on the foreign-policy front. He's spent years thinking about how to sell anti-imperialism to the fuckers who run things, and given the monumental nature of that task, he hasn't done a bad job of it. He's developed a respectable brand of isolationism, just by elaborating on Jim Henley's elegant dictum, "Hayek does not stop at the water's edge." Henley certainly still admires him, at least on foreign policy: Yglesias entrusted him with the final edit of his book, as I recall. All of this is worth something, at least to me.
I have no handle.
Anti-imperialism? Piglesias?
Reading comprehension? Not so much.
Holy shit IOZ, post something already for a guy stuck at a desk on a Friday afternoon.
The Josh Marshall commment is dead on. Maybe another post featuring Glen Beck, the Birther chic, Sarah Palin or trotting out the Nadar canard will shock people enough to be brought back into the fold. Or maybe the emperor has no clothes.
Let's see if this works, mutatis mutandins:
H Göring, head-honcho:
Why, of course, the people don't want [corporatist medicine]. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to [pay the corporations extra] when the best that he can get out of it is to [get the level of care he is already getting]. Naturally, the common people don't want [corporatist medicine]; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can [reform healthcare].
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them [the country is in crisis] and denounce the [reform opponents] for lack of [compassion] and exposing the [people of the] country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
See, it fits!
The Christians
Mackey is still a capitalist pig. That's why nobody should shop at his stores. At least, if you are a true leftist. Plus, I'm hirsute, not a shaved cue ball head.
A spoonful of What Are You Lookin at SugarTits helps the medicine go down.
Wow, xtans is smart enough to do Mad Libs. That's quite a few notches higher than I'd have expected.
I'm probably a hypocrite for one reason or another. I don't shop at Wal-Mart, but I would still buy shit at Mackey's stores if I wanted to spend that much. He and his editorial, though I disagree, I never saw as very offensive. He's a respectable capitalist.
That said, this leftwing radical needs to say that the Obama plan sucks, and that it is astounding to me how easily we can go to war in this country in comparison to how easily we can actually push healthcare reform (which is a meaningless term in itself, IOZ, of course, but I use it to mean "a change in how healthcare is delivered or paid for or something," and I am of course suggesting that this is change that I, personally, would like).
So I guess the question comes down to whether they would if they could. I could blame the Senate Dems, like Mr. Durbin did obliquely, describing it as a diverse org of conservatives, moderates, and liberals or progressives. Or I could say that, even were the Dems pliable to their own leadership, that leadership has motives of its own. Who wags whom here? Personally, I bet that Mr. Biden would love us to put our health costs on credit.
So, at the risk of sounding like a jackass, I want to say that I actually liked Dean's editorial on this. The Democrats are really, really pushing the narrative of "well, no, it's not everything, but at least it's something." Of course, I actually know people for whom this will be an impossible expense, so maybe that's why I'm skeptical.
Michael Dawson wrote:
...Where's Kevorkian when he's needed?
The Democrats don't need Kevorkian so long as they have Nader. I don't know what they're going to do once he finally drops dead, though. :/
You know, I don't even care. Americans deserve this 10x over.
Instead of quoting Lebowski or making a dick joke I'd like to ask a serious question.
So the American pharmaceutical and insurance industries has everyone in their pocket. So expecting meaningful healthcare reform is silly. That's been obvious for my entire life. But I also know that other countries aren't all liberal paradises or anything. They have their own groups of concentrated power that do their best to influence the government. Yet every other industrialized country and even some otherwise really shitty tropical hellholes where openly bribing police officers is considered normal seem to be a lot closer to figuring this whole healthcare thing out compared to us. So I can understand why we're fucking this up but why aren't lots of other countries under the pharma/insurance boot?
Is this reverse American exceptionalism? We're that much more retarded and corrupt than everyone else? Really?
In most other countries the state is more directly involved in the distribution of medicines, and through monopoly power are able to negotiate cheaper drug prices. Also most people are less wealthy so drug prices have to be lower in order for them to afford it.
It's like Lenin said.
Re: Lenin
From each according to ability, to each according to need?
I am the walrus.
I think the best Lebowski quote for this fuckpile would be "Dude, are you fucking this up?"
It is certainly interesting for me to read the blog. Thanx for it. I like such topics and everything that is connected to them. I definitely want to read a bit more on that blog soon.
Best regards
Steave Markson
http://www.cafb29b24.org/docs/buyativan/#56391 ativan side effects eyes - high dose ativan considered
Post a Comment