In my experience one of the great pleasures of modern life is to scan rightwing comment threads after a post about Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh. At least since Palinmania! the same scene replays itself almost every time. For a while the commenters mostly agree that liberals are worse than cancer. Sadly, the happy reverie breaks as soon as some well-meaning board regular gently suggests that lining up behind such obvious idiots may prove less than useful, even taking into account that they piss off liberals. Inevitably commenter X (let’s call him ‘David Frum’) supported Republicans all his life and voted for Bush twice, for all the good that does him. Without fail the thread devolves into a prolonged search for why X can be dismissed.
Almost invariably the true believers bring up a wingnut litimus test that I call The List. D.F. must simultaneously oppose abortion (always), support torture, wiretapping and aggressive war, question evolution and doubt global warming, fear muslims, hate taxes and really hate government healthcare. If D.F. fails a single point on the list then he’s clearly a bogus conservative, anathema and unwelcome to taint the pristine boards with his heterodoxy. The question of the day (e.g., did Sarah Palin harm the ticket) usually makes a guest appearance on The List, conveniently anathematizing anyone who disagrees with the putative topic of the thread.
The List has a life outside of the internet. Christopher Buckley, Colin Powell and, of course, David Frum faced more or less the same thing IRL. Heterodoxy is schism. That the DFs are perfectly right, and that true believers torment them for trying to save their own party* is what makes it so funny to watch.
In a deeper sense the funniest part of all is how little of The List is recognizably Republican. Other than the bit about taxes not one of those bedrock Republican principles stretches farther back than the Reagan administration. Not only are most of these points younger than most Republican voters (judging by recent polls, also younger than most of their kids) but more than half, for example the unprovoked wars and government surveillance stuff, would make William F. Buckley or Barry Goldwater spin so fast that their graves could change the rotation of the Earth.
What’s going on is kind of simple, and kind of terrible if you’re a Republican. Almost every bullet point on The List doesn’t come from the party’s core purpose. That would be protecting the money class from the danger of social mobility via Social Security, healthcare and progressive taxation. At this point almost all of The List comes from tactical decisions that Republicans made over the years to pad their vote share.
The muslim hate stuff would puzzle Republican leaders from Reagan to Norquist, and government surveillance and extralegal torture would probably kill Goldwater again. The story of the religious right is especially chuckleworthy. It dates from the Reagan era, when Republicans freaked out over Carter and MLK Jr. and made a cynical deal with some fringe religious leaders like Pat Robertson, whom they considered chumps to be milked for votes. Eventually ‘chumps’ claimed enough of the party to start demanding, and getting, more than insincere lip service, though that era is fairly recent. Naturally one of the first things that they demanded and got was Terri Schiavo. Brava.
The terrorism parts on the list are particularly comical, maybe because they’re so new. Scan the 2000 Republican party platform for relevant words. Bin Laden? Al Qaeda? Nada. Terroris* returns three hits**. Compare that with twenty hits for Iraq. It is even interestinger that al Qaeda blew up our buildings while Condoleeza Rice was in the middle of a speaking tour arguing that, contra Richard Clarke, Iraq was the looming imminent threat that Americans should pee their pants about. The torture and muslim hate stuff is just the usual ass-covering overreaction when a diminished person gets caught by surprise with his pants around his ankles.
Lunatics running the asylum has become cliche, but that is exactly what happened here. Republicans made a series of short-term grabs for this constituency or that for the votes to repeal the estate tax, kill Social Security and increase taxes on the poor/middle class, but somehow the chump constituencies got hold of the keys and took over the main office. Now the money class doesn’t trust Republicans and a drooling hodgepodge of xenophobes, nativists, torture fans, religious fanatics, racists and militiamen camped out in the cafeteria kicked Christopher Buckley to the curb.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
No, f*ck that. It is hilarious. I wish the GOP could keep dying forever.
(*) The Bush admin made a closet industry out of persecuting heretics out of their job and sometimes siccing the famously objective Ashcroft/Gonzales DoJ.
(**) If you want to find plans to deal with the actual people who attacked us, look here.
b-psycho
When hard-rightists are as universally ignored as hard-leftists, it’ll be interesting to hear what the right-wing version of “Democracy Now!” sounds like…
Delia
You know, I look at things like Cheney’s country-wide fear tour and the way it’s got all the Villagers drooling over him again, or the way the goopers have been playing the Dems for chumps over the spectre of Gitmo detainees in our backyards, and I start thinking these lunatics have won after all. The whole country’s still acting like paranoid frightened children armed with submachine guns.
John O
Nice summary, Tim.
It is a yahoo clusterf**k running the GOP, no doubt about it. I laugh from time to time, but in between they frighten me.
Arun
Well said. By coincidence, I just read before this an article on how the GOP’s putting all their eggs in a Southern basket is backfiring disastrously. Your post reminded me of a lot of the same themes.
By courting the “base” they’ve repelled everyone else.
nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cs_20090523_2195.php
I agree though, it’s splendid to watch. There seems to be no floor, no bottom, no end to their venal stupidity, and it makes me actually proud that most Americans actually do have the brains , and perhaps compassion, to vote against these sociopaths, finally.
Ked
Oddly, I think that it would probably squick Dubya too. Yes, his administration exploited it, but pretty much everything that came out of the President’s mouth was a lot more conciliatory. He was notoriously well-sheltered from “hostile” crowds, but one of the odd side effects of that is that the crazy haters also got filtered as well.
I’m not so naive as to think that the entire Obama-is-a-Muslim meme (which is more appalling in its built in assumption that if he is, then he’s obviously a traitor rather than the blatant lie aspect) showed up without some expert astroturf help, but the way it wormed into the far-right subconscious and has become part of their mythology could not possibly have been intended by the Republican leadership. It’s not just that the southern evangelicalists are running the show anymore, but that the 10-percenters, the far fringe on the right, are driving the narrative in ways that their leadership doesn’t fully appreciate.
Woodrowfan
Why do righties think it’s so useful, indeed, even valuable and praiseworthy to piss off the left? I constantly see “piss off a liberal” bumper stickers, and I live in a fairly blue area. It’s rather bewildering how a position on an issue can be seen to be correct simply because it supposedly angers a political opponent, even if it is self-destructive…
Actually I suspect I know why—>>because the average rightwinger is, at heart, an asshole, and assholes get off on pissing people off….
dmsilev
The question then becomes how does the Republican Party (as opposed to the conservative movement) regain its footing. If it continues on the current path, appealing to its current core demographic, we’ll soon have to initiate use of the Whig Watch tag. Yet, at the same time, the Purity of Essence effect that Tim writes about renders any sort of outreach to e.g. the Hispanic community difficult to carry out.
-dms
Jennifer
Perhaps the most hilarious aspect of it all is, as you pointed out, the total absence of anything approximating classic conservative positions.
For example, a classic conservative position on healthcare would recognize that the current for-profit system is in itself an intolerable obstruction of the free market, since you’ve got a handful of private health insurance company bureaucrats who are essentially dictating to the rest of us where we can or cannot work. Further conservative critique of the system would be that it is very inefficient in delivering the goods at a price set purely by market forces. Health care demand is fairly inelastic – it increases at about the same rate as the population does – but at the same time, it’s very much a closed market. There isn’t much it could be compared to in terms of consumer goods or services – it’s a universal need, much as food and housing are – but it’s the only product or service I can think of where the businesses offering the product/service actively work to exclude large numbers of people from buying the product/service. You can’t find that anywhere else in the “free” market – you might have to shop around for a lawyer to take your case, or for a better price on a tv, but someone is going to be willing to exchange that service or product in return for your money – not so in healthcare. For an adherent of classic conservative principles, this would be a tip-off that perhaps it’s a special case which cannot be efficiently served by private interests in a free market. Furthermore, the classic conservative would be appalled by the idea of paying so much more for so much less in return.
As for the rest of it, the illness that brought us the clusterfuck in Iraq stretches further back than any of the other silliness, and I think you have to consider the ongoing need for enemies, foreign or domestic, a part of Republican DNA. No matter what they morph into, that will be an aspect of it.
gnomedad
They must, of course, be officially in favor of social mobility, and showcase rags-to-riches stories, but any attempt to promote it must be portrayed as soshulism. That’s why they thought Joe the Plumber was such a great icon; if the evil Dems weren’t taxing him to death, he’d be a gazillionaire by now, even without book deals. In fact, that’s the only reason we’re not all gazillionaires.
Some Random Chick
I find it difficult to visit those sites. Some of the folks you find there are sort of frightening. Of course, they are mostly infuriating.
I did visit conservatives4palin once just out of curiosity and got a laugh that made my day.
The topic was the the RNC’s botched roll-out of Palin (see, it was just the presentation that was all wrong, the package itself is fine). I was actually enjoying some of the delusional comments until I came to this one. Wish I’d copied and pasted it somewhere because it was perfect. Here’s a paraphrase:
“What I don’t understand is why they didn’t do a better job of preparing her. They should have worked with her to brush up on her foreign policy and let her have a few light-weight, friendly interviews to start off. Then she could have gone on the tougher shows. Instead, they just immediately threw her to the sharks!”
OMG, Gibson and Couric as sharks! I’ll never get that image out of my head, and I never want to. Good times.
Taylor
Unfortunately a country without an effective opposition party is not something we should be wishing for. Sure, let’s get UHC passed while the Republicans are in disarray, it is critical for the future fiscal health of the country. But just imagine how corrupt any party will become in our patronage-based system without effective opposition. We’ll be looking to the FBI and the CIA to keep them in check.
Perhaps the best case scenario is that the current Republican party will completely implode, and then the Ben Nelsons of the world can join up with the Susan Collinses to form a new conservative party, and we can have an honest to God debate about the future direction of the country.
But if Dems become a bipartisan party of permanent government, Washington will become nothing more than a vending machine for political patronage. As if it isn’t already.
Jennifer
@Taylor:
Well, the essential issue is that we really only have one party – the Corporatist party. It’s just that a small nutty bunch off in the corner wants to layer a bunch of Jesus and Ayn Rand over the top of it. Both parties, given power, ultimately serve the same master. The difference is, when people finally get so pissed off about health care or something of the like and hit the streets en masse to demand it get fixed, if the Democrats are in power at the time, it will get addressed in some admittedly inadequate way, but something will get done. And the troops won’t be called out to shoot the protesters.
Stephen1947
Usually those of us entertained by this spectacle cover our smirks long enough to say what a shame it is that we don’t have a serious opposition party to keep the dominant one honest, etc. etc. I’m thinking what we should do is start cultivating parties to the left of the Dems (who would be center-right in any country with a reasonable spectrum of political opinion) – let the Dems become the new Publicans and the progressives and socialists hook up to oppose them.
Let the Publicans as they are now continue to rot away.
gnomedad
@Some Random Chick:
I was astonished at how poorly she did with perfectly predictable questions. I recall reading somewhere that she essentially blew off efforts to brief her. I think anyone who bothered to pay attention for the length of time she was under wraps could have done a better job. I think she basically didn’t care and felt the true believers would rally for her no matter what.
@Woodrowfan:
Pissing off liberals is fun, but it’s only the means to an end, the end being promoting the meme that liberals are ineffectual and comtemptible and not worth taking seriously.
Delia
Yes. You have the rightwing fundie Jesus people and the Randians all in one mix pretending they all get along and all belong together. Add a few outright psychopaths and you have today’s Republican Party. What could go wrong?
Napoleon
Very good post Tim.
@Arun:
That is a very good article.
Brachiator
I was really rocking and rolling with you until I got to this;
I haven’t run across anything so bizarre since my student days hanging around with avowed Marxists and anarcho-syndicalists.
Social Security, healthcare and progressive taxation are worthy and necessary (well maybe not so much healthcare) but they ain’t got squat to do with improving social mobility.
In fact, even parts of the tax system which Democrats love, work against social mobility. For example, single people are taxed at higher rates than married people, so two single people trying to work to make their pile and contribute to society are taxed more highly than a married couple with kids. And perversely, a single mom with a couple of kids would lose all kinds of tax breaks were she to marry a guy who was unemployed but who had good prospects for the future.
This is nonsense. I’m not even sure how you would measure health care demand as you state it here.
Not really true. People shop for health care all the time, even in ways that you and I think might be stupid. The vitamin and herbal supplement industry, even though largely a sham, is a way that people shop healtcare. The same is true of alternative and holistic health practices, again all largely scams and shams. Then you have “traditional” and other neighborhood medical practices, etc.
The only problem is that government sponsored health care, while perhaps desirable, is not particularly efficient.
Very true, although the Wingnut crowd just had to turn a blind eye to the degree to which Dubya and company were devoted pals of the Arab princes.
Jennifer
@Delia:
2001 – 2008
Thankfully, most people have gotten the point. At least for now.
Jennifer
Obviously you’re not a self-employed person who’s ever had a chronic or critical health incident.
You can’t buy insurance if you are. No one will agree to insure you.
Your choices are: go to work for someone who offers group health, marry someone who works for someone who offers group health (and good luck with that if you’re gay in 46 of the 50 states), or go without knowing that even a minor health incident will wipe out your home, your savings, your business.
Are you seriously arguing that the list of options there doesn’t severely impede millions of individuals from finding the most efficient niche for themselves in the free market?
Dennis-SGMM
@Some Random Chick:
What creeped me out more than Palin’s ignorance and mindless repetition of her talking points was the people who asserted afterward, with straight faces, that Palin had been ambushed with ‘gotcha’ questions. It was reminiscent of the “It’s a Good Life” episode of Twilight Zone.
MTiffany
First, I want to say that anyone who takes Pat Robertson and his ilk for chumps is foolish. Far from being chumps, Pat Robertson and those like him derive their influence and wealth from chumps — their faithful tithing flocks.
Second, there is a liberal version of The List, and if you don’t believe me: try telling the more militant AIDS activists that Ronald Reagan isn’t solely responsible for causing the HIV/AIDS pandemic, or try telling tie-dyed-in-the-wool tree-huggers that per kilowatt-hour generated nuclear power is far safer than any other source of electricity bar none, or try telling the true believers of the social justice movement that progressive taxation where the maximum marginal rates are above 50% are in fact a disincentive to work, and see what happens to you. The name calling, reflexive dismissiveness, and vitriol must be experienced to be believed, let me tell you.
Bill E Pilgrim
@Dennis-SGMM: @Dennis-SGMM:
That’s what the whole Rush Limbaugh thing has been reminding me of.
“It’s…..good! Rush, that you made that vile, sexist, racist remark! No, when I said you were a hideous clown I meant…in a good way!”
Now just wish Michael Steele into the cornfield, Rush, that’s a good boy, no one wants to look the horrible emasculated caricature you’ve made him into…
DougJ
This is a good and important question. I think it has to do with the immense power wingnut media has in the Republican world. No politician would think it was a good idea to piss off the opposition, but a radio or tv personality very well might. Politically, a pissed off opposition equals energized opponents; media-wise, a pissed-off opposition often means free publicity.
Roger Moore
@Jennifer:
That’s not quite true. In states with civil union/domestic partnership laws, gays can often get health coverage through their partners. I’m not going to pretend that’s acceptable- it’s crazy that people should need to be married/partnered to get health care- but it’s slightly less dire than you make it out to be.
Bill E Pilgrim
@Roger Moore:
Gosh I wouldn’t think you’d have time to worry about health care coverage, with that schedule.
Even if you were straight in 46 of the 50 states, come to think of it.
Roger Moore
@DougJ:
I’m not 100% sure that’s right. Pissing off the liberals may be a practical electoral strategy in some cases. It helps to rally the base by proving that you’re a tough guy who isn’t going to compromise with teh libruls. It’s only stupidly counterproductive as a governance policy. Adopting policies that are good electoral strategy but poor governing strategy seems to be a specialty of the wingnuts.
Phoebe
The whole thing is fascinating and wondrous to behold. There’s a fine line between depressing and hilarious with this stuff, and the fact that our side prevailed in the election, and keeps doing so, poll-wise, keeps this spectacle firmly on the “hilarious” side of the line.
There’s a facebook group called something like “Dick Cheney shut the fuck up” and I couldn’t disagree more. I want him to talk himself into prison, into the Everlasting Hall of Infamy, into an object lesson for all sorts of things, things hiding under rocks for way too long.
Bill E Pilgrim
@Brachiator:
That must be why health care in France costs so much less per capita and delivers a better product.
It’s a drag when facts intrude, I know.
DougJ
That’s true, too. But I think the level to which wingers have taken it makes no sense politically, but probably makes a lot of sense for Hannity and Limbaugh.
wilfred
Brilliant – the classical mechanics of the far right. I wonder if party switching is its quantum mechanics.
Madman in the Marketplace
This is all fine and good, but try pointing out in most liberal circles that the donks shouldn’t be expanding the war in Afghanistan, or that Obama is continuing interrogation and secrecy policies very much in line with Bush’s. Try to get the party and Obama’s cult of personality to consider single payer. I could go on … but the truth is that while the wingers may be particularly psychotic in their narrow mindedness, they aren’t alone. It seems to be a function of American society to divide off in warring tribes of like-thinking people.
The level of silliness runs across the entire spectrum of political “debate” in this eff’d up culture. Obama, Clinton, Reid … they’re all center-right authoritarians. In the grand history of American politics, they’re not far from Eisenhower in political thought, yet they’re considered “the left”.
Keep pointing fingers at them, but far too many continue to hope for “change” from a man who is advocating indefinite detention, continued government secrecy, pandering of misogynist religious nuts who want to deny women full control over their own bodies. You’ve got an education secretary who supports vouchers and a rebranded NCLB. An entire Administration so far up Israels ass that they could slaughter all of Gaza and our government would support them. They want to “fix” healthcare by forcing everyone to buy insurance. They “rein in” the credit card industry without capping usury and trumpeting a bunch of meaningless restrictions that don’t even take effect for months. I could go on.
All of this, and I bet most of you, and the supposed “progressive”/”liberal” blogosphere would continue to support them.
Laugh at the wingers, but irrational views of the world controls both parties. The entire mess serves only the corporations who own both parties.
John Cole
I knew nothing about her when she was named, but it became clear she is a complete idiot rather quickly. Let’s face it, they rally around her because she is one of them. She’s not very smart.
John Cole
That is what you consider shopping for healthcare? Picking up some valerian root instead of getting a CAT scan to see what is causing your migraines?
Very few people shop for health care. You either have it from your job, or you most likely don’t have it. God bless the small business owners who manage to cover their employees, but anyone who wants to even pretend it is an open and free market in regards to health care is probably smoking too many home remedies.
Dennis-SGMM
@Roger Moore:
I don’t think that their electoral strategy is serving them that well any more. The party has become captive to its most extreme elements. Any Republican who shows any sort of moderation (See: Jon Huntsman) or who even questions the wisdom of Rush Limbaugh is shouted off of the stage.
The challenge for them as a party is to figure a way to sell the base on ideas that are not batshit-insane recapitulations of crap that was already old during the Golden Age of Reagan so that they can appeal to the other 72% of America. Right now they seem to lack both the will and the interest to do so.
Phoebe
That’s exactly right @34. It’s the biggest truest have/have-not divide there is, that I can see, and it shows up when something bad happens. And suddenly I’m getting facebook pleas for someone’s medical care I don’t even know.
MTiffany
@John Cole:
The horror of it is that when she runs again, if she can manage to speak in coherent and complete sentences, her handlers will spin her as a genius to the base – and they’re probably dumb or zealous enough to buy it – and to the rest of the electorate they’ll play to the conventional wisdom that “Americans root for the underdog” and try to spin her capacity to learn (“You can actually understand what she’s saying now!”) as some sort of triumph-over-adversity comeback nonsensical Americana hokeyness. And a disturbing number of people will probably buy it. “See honey! She’s not a total moron”
And those same people will probably be sick of Barack Obama by then because they’re probably the ones who when they were in high school were envious of — and hated and tormented — the smartest kid in the class.
Never underestimate your fellow American’s right to begrudge someone else their brains and desire to learn and think. The Republican Party thrives by exploiting that envy.
Cat Lady
@John Cole:
This. I believe education played the most important role in determining how people voted – more than D or R, or black or white. Thoughtful educated smart people found the prospect of her as president horrifying. Uneducated people didn’t understand why one of their own was becoming a punchline, and they took it personally. I found it hard to say to wingnut friends who identified with Palin that she was an idiot, because it was like telling them that I mean they’re idiots too. But that’s exactly what it was.
Dennis-SGMM
@John Cole:
The glaring irony is that many in Congress wouldn’t be able to get health insurance at any price on the open market. You can imagine the response if John McCain applied for a policy with any HMO in America. Shopping for healthcare? It is to laugh. If you’ve never, ever, been sick, aren’t over fifty, aren’t pregnant and can pony up the equivalent of a car payment every month you can purchase health insurance with the caveat that the first time you actually need it they will cancel you based on the fact that you failed to mention that you caught chickenpox when you were eight.
srv
FIY, Barry Goldwater was not a natural born US citizen.
The part of Arizona he was born in was not a state yet.
Martin
That’s their means-test. So many of them really don’t recognize anything other than pure binary options. If Democrats think it’s wrong, then it must be right. There’s no concept that torture could be effective but still wrong, or that a pro choice person could still oppose abortion. There isn’t much room for gray in their world.
Proof for this was every House Republican and all but 3 Senate Republicans voting against the largest middle class tax cut in history. The fact that Democrats were pushing it meant that it was the wrong thing to do, even though it is exactly what Republicans suggest doing as a solution to every problem.
asiangrrlMN
Tim F., I like this post. I marvel at the ever-shrinking GOP, and I wonder how they will ever be relevant again.
Violet
Fantastic post, TimF. Thank you.
@Dennis-SGMM:
You speak the truth. Except a large number of members of Congress, especially the older ones who’ve been around awhile, are rich, rich, rich. They can afford to buy the super expensive healthcare. So they could get covered.
But your point still stands. I think health care coverage for members of Congress should be eliminated. Take it away and let them see what it’s like to buy it on the open market. I guarantee healthcare reform would happen pretty quickly. Is there any kind of movement out there supporting the elmination of healthcare insurance for member of Congress? There should be. Fastest way to get things to change.
LD50
The difference being, of course, that the Liberal version is ignored in choosing Democratic candidates, while ascribing to the Wingnut list is now mandatory for GOP candidates.
r€nato
@srv:
Actually, *all* of Arizona was not yet a state when Barry Goldwater was born in Phoenix in 1909…
LD50
Also, let’s not forget that Mitt Romney’s dad was born in Mexico. If Romney was black or a liberal, this would be enough to disqualify him from the presidency.
r€nato
@MTiffany:
All of the factions you mentioned – militant AIDS activists, “hardcore” social justice activists, and dyed-in-the-wool treehuggers – are NOT driving the Democratic Party agenda and platform in any way whatsoever. You might as well tell me that Ward Churchill is to Democrats as Rush Limbaugh is to Republicans. Did you used to live in Santa Cruz or something? This notion that the fringe is running the Dem show is quite risible.
Their counterparts on the right have virtually taken over the GOP, at least “intellectually” and before much longer, enough moderates (both politicians and average joe GOP-registered voters) will desert the party so that in sheer numbers they’ll define the GOP as well.
One of the more astonishing things Cheney said in recent days – all but lost in the coverage of his abject worship at the altar of torture – was that he’d rather have Rush Limbaugh steer the course of the GOP than Colin Powell.
(no small irony that Cheney chose a fellow chickenhawk over the guy with decades of service to his country, who led the real ‘coalition of the willing’ to a swift victory in the Gulf War. So much for the notion that Republicans love our troops more than Jeebus…)
And for once, I agree with DickHead Cheney. Hell, let’s have Hannity and Savage as Limbaugh’s lieutenants. That would be awesome.
John O
Jennifer, you are a joy and smart and a good writer.
Beej
@Violet: I agree 100%. At 62, I work part-time and care for my mother and husband, both semi-invalids, the rest of the time. They are covered by Medicare and gap policies. I have to buy my own insurance. It costs me $525/month. That’s right, $525, roughly 1/4 of my monthly income. Wouldn’t it be interesting if Congress critters had to pony up a similar percentage of their income for health insurance? Their attitudes might just undergo a sea change.
John O
Right on, Violet. I often tell my wingnut-lite pals that the “left-right” debate is really just a smoke-screen, with the Have’s-media totally complicit, to make the rabble debate the politics instead of the economics.
Dennis-SGMM
@r€nato:
You have that right. I actually did live in Santa Cruz, about half a mile from Lighthouse Point and beloved Steamer Lane, and I still have a Gene McCarthy “daisy” sticker to prove it. Fat lot of good it did: pot is still illegal and UHC is no closer than it was then.
leo
Let’s not forget, this is the party of Joe McCarthy.
Brachiator
@Jennifer:
Obviously you’re not a self-employed person who’s ever had a chronic or critical health incident.
I would never argue what I would like to see for a health care system for everyone based primarily on my own self-interest or medical situation. And many health care activists are either dissembling or dishonest when they imply that they can deliver a system which allows everyone infinite access to medical care for all conditions and situations.
These are not the only choices, especially for the self-employed.
There ain’t no such thing as finding the most efficient niche for yourself in the free market, whether you are liberal or conservative.
@Bill E Pilgrim:
Some people jump among Canadian, UK, German and French health care systems, cherry picking the stuff they like and ignoring the problems. But here is a little nugget about French health care:
You’re right. Facts can be a bitch. And note that I think there is much about the French system that deserves looking into as we consider health care options.
@John Cole:
I didn’t make myself clear. I live in Southern California, where craziness reigns. I know people who have free or low-cost health care who insist on not using it at all or only for dire emergencies, who instead spend their own income on Chinese herbal medicine and similar stuff, even (in one case) refusing to use traditional medicine even though they may be damaging their health.
In short: the health care coverage that people have is not always related to the dumbass health care decisions they make. I was not considering here people who use alternative medicine because they cannot afford standard health care.
Also, in California, there is an obnoxious crowd of morans who want health insurance to pay for worthless alternative medical alternatives. I see this as an issue as the US considers health care plans.
It’s interesting that some who note that one problem with health care is that the market is not open and free think that the solution is to eliminate the market altogether. This seems willfully perverse.
And yet isn’t it odd the sheer volume of TV programs and movies which suggest that the only reason to go to college is to party, and that for most people, the most significant time of their lives is when they were in high school? The otherwise fun Fox pilot Glee, is the latest example of this.
Palin, like Dubya, hits this sentiment dead center, that you just need the Baby Jebus and “common sense” and all will be right. Palin’s lack of intellectual accomplishment is seen as a virtue.
But then again, there are those who view rock as the ultimate in American culture, and mock people who like jazz or classical music as snobbish, pretentious or elitist.
Tsulagi
In my experience one of the great pleasures of modern life is to scan rightwing comment threads after a post about Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh.
Or
tortureenhanced interrogation.Wouldn’t go so far as “one of the great pleasures of modern life,” but I got some good laughs this morning reading a RedState diary. Debating whether Jesus would give one, or maybe even two thumbs up for waterboarding…
Ummm, wasn’t Dad God? The swarthy brown people could kill God? Are they God’s kryptonite? Didn’t know that. Wow, 9/11 really did change everything. One of the comments had this…
What happened to that turn the other cheek stuff?
These people are certifiably loony, but they make for good comedy.
Jennifer
I haven’t heard anyone suggest that.
There are quite a few countries with universal health care which are not single-payer systems, in which private companies insure all individuals, but in which they are mandated to provide coverage at a set cost – often tied to income level – to all comers, or in which the government pays for the coverage. They don’t get to cherry-pick only the young and healthy and deny coverage to everyone else. They have mandated overhead and profit limits on basic care; they are allowed to sell enhanced policies and earn profits on those, and most citizens carry them.
Of course, in these systems, the insurers are highly regulated and the government sets the price structure for medical procedures, wages, drugs, etc etc etc, so you’d hardly call that a “free market” either.
There isn’t a completely “free market” solution to health coverage, for the simple fact that without strigent regulation, private insurers will always seek to maximize profits, which will inevitably lead to cherry-picking customers and denying as many claims as they can get away with denying.
John O
Wow, Tsulagi. Good find.
One sure wingnut litmus test is WWJD. The very thought that He wouldn’t be considered a DFH is funny, but I repeat, a bit scary.
John O
Jennifer, why don’t you have your own blog?
Inquiring minds want to know.
MTiffany
@LD50:
You’re absolutely right. Ascribing to the Wingnut List is now mandatory for GOP candidates, but it was not always so. Before the “Reagan Revolution” there were moderates in the Republican Party who were not anti-choice, anti-immigration, anti-tax, anti-everything. One of these moderates even called Reagan’s tax proposal “voodoo economics.” Perhaps you’ve heard of him – George H. W. Bush, 41st President of the United States, successor to and Vice President of Ronald Reagan.
There was a time when the far right needed moderate Republicans in order for the Republicans to win certain elections. Reagan needed Bush to win the Presidency. He couldn’t have gone full-wingnut on the ticket in 1980 or even 1984.
Twenty years later? We get George Bush and Dick Cheney in 2000, a full wingnut Republican ticket.
How many moderates are left in the Republican Party? The few that haven’t already left are being driven out.
So again, yes, you’re right. The far left does not control the Democratic Party, for now. But what happened to the Republican Party could just as easily happen to the Democrats.
Hunter Gathers
With the state of the GOP as it is, the fact that they can still raise decent money astounds me. Not the small donors, but the big money types. Sure, they agree with them idiologically, but how much longer will they throw their money away on losers? If the GOP doesn’t re-take the Congress in 2010, they will be redistricted out of relevance. The census is next year and whomever controls Congress in 2011 gets to re-draw the political map.
With the demographic changes that are happening, the GOP needs to adjust and adjust quickly in order to survive. If they go apeshit when an immigration compromise bill comes up, they risk permanently loosing 60 to 70% of the Hispanic Vote for a generation. If they don’t find a way to quiet the anti-government authoritarian radicals that have hijacked the party, Wingnut will be the new DFH.
They will be a minority party, in Congress, for at least 20 years, if not longer. They may be able to capture the White House, but control of Congress will evade them for a long time.
LD50
As Elvis reputedly said, “and if my aunt had nuts, she’d be my uncle”.
As much as I’d like the Democratic Party to move hard left and keep power, it ain’t gonna happen.
John D.
@Brachiator:
You realize that is comparing the FRENCH and CANADIAN costs, right? The US figure for 2005 was $6687, pretty much twice as much.
mclaren
Dennis-SGMM remarked:
No, I don’t think that’s correct. The big problem facing Repubicans is the fact that all their ideas have been tried, and they’ve all failed.
This is different from just figuring out how to put a different spin on things.
Every single policy the Republican Party stands for has been discredited because we’ve tried them and they created disaster after disaster after disaster.
Deregulating the financial markets? Check. Produced a global financial meltdown. Been there, tried that, doesn’t work.
Faith-based government policies? Check. Global warming denial and abstinence-only sex ed. Been there, tried that, doesn’t work.
Pre-emptive war? Check. See Iraq invasion 2003. Been there, tried that, doesn’t work.
Unilateral foreign policy? Check. Been there, tried that, doesn’t work.
Appeals to the base? Check. See the 2006 election and the 2008 election. Been there, tried that, doesn’t work.
Massive government intrusion into our daily courtesy of the TSA, the DHS, warrantless wiretapping. Check. Been there, tried that, doesn’t work.
Tax cuts as an attempt to raise revenue? Check. Been there, tried that, doesn’t work.
So what’s left?
The Republicans face much more than just an image problem. It isn’t just that the fringe lunatics took over their party. The basic problem is that every since the senile sociopath Ronald Reagan came to power in 1981, all conservative ideas has been insane and unworkable, starting with the crackpot nostrums offered by Ronnie.
Everything Reagan stood for was kooky gibberish. Everything. He didn’t offer one single sound workable policy. Moreover, the crazy policies we’re seeing coming out of the Republicans today are nothing but the same kooky gibberish Reagan spouted back in 1981.
The only difference? Back in 1981, America was so rich and so secure, we could afford to put Reagan’s insane policies into practice, and, while they damaged America, they didn’t damage us so badly that the American public screamed bloody murder about it.
Republican policies are like arsenic. Take a small dose for a short time, and you’ll feel sick and you’ll vomit and you’ll pass out, but you’ll recover. But if you take enough of it for long enough, it’ll kill you.
slightly_peeved
Considering the per capita health expenditure for the US in 2005 was US$6401 from the figures I got (someone else got higher from another source), I don’t see how the similarities of France and Canada affect the debate. Apart from as an illustration of how many countries other than the US, and how many other approaches to the US’s, are able to do much better for much cheaper.
I don’t know who these “some people” are. Most people I’ve discussed health care with on this website are aware of, say, the waiting lists for elective surgery in Canada, or the poor conditions of some hospitals in the UK. It’s just that whatever those problems are, these countries still cover all their citizens, to a level that allows them a life expectancy better than the US, for significantly cheaper than the US system. Focusing on the issues with these systems is useful when comparing which of these systems is better, but when comparing them with the US system it misses the forest for the trees.
Given a set of systems A through X, that perform similarly well on the metrics for such systems, and a system Y that performs worse than the other systems on almost every metric, it is willfully perverse to suggest the way to improve system Y is to move towards some imaginary system Z. It shouldn’t be about “free market” vs. “non-free market”; leave that for the philosophers. It should be about what works, vs. what doesn’t work.
In Australia, private health insurance does cover some of this stuff. Why not? It gets that insurer some more customers, and the government can ignore it.
Eric
Any party that lined up behind Joe Biden has no room to criticize other people for “lining up behind such obvious idiots”.
oh really
Not without a full bottle of Zofran available.
Bill E Pilgrim
@Brachiator:
I guess someone else has covered this already, but I’m not sure I understand your point in posting a comparison of Canadian and French per capita costs.
Does that presumably somehow contradict my statement that France spends less and gets more than the US?
The US certainly spends more, as others have pointed out, at least twice the figure for France that you posted.
As for the quality, I know both systems very well, and I can say with a fairly high degree of confidence that almost no one in the States has a clue about what the French system is actually like.
Mind you, I have experienced long waits for appointments, months in some cases, limited and denied services, and nightmarish amounts of bureaucracy and red tape.
But that was all in the US system.
Brachiator
@Jennifer:
This seemed to be the thrust of your argument when you suggested that “this would be a tip-off that perhaps [health care is] a special case which cannot be efficiently served by private interests in a free market.”
True. But there are also countries which forbid or restrict an individual’s right to contract for private health care (e.g. some Canadian provinces, including Quebec). The devil is in the details. I’m not sure what the consensus is in terms of what might be perceived as the best model for the U.S.
I agree with you here, although I am still analyzing how countries with universal health care allow room for “profits,” that is, efficiency in current operations and funds set aside for research and innovation.
@John D:
Yep. I was in a hurry, since I had to leave. I meant to go on to note that a past Business Week article which largely praised the French system noted this caution:
@slightly_peeved:
It’s not a philosophical question, but an economics one. In practical terms, it’s also about trade-offs, and which are acceptable.
HeartlandLiberal
Absolute key to this is the racism still endemic and embedded in much of American society. The “Southern Strategy” in its entirety was nothing less than a veiled appeal to the virulent and ongoing racism towards Blacks, especially in the states of the former Confederacy.
I speak not from some distant ivory tower on this, but as one who was born in 1946 and grew up in Alabama and experienced the Civil Rights movement first hand. In my lifetime I have watched the Republican party gain its current preeminence in the South for two reasons: it represents those who are white and have money, and who fear anyone who is NOT white and has no or little money.
I now live in the mid-west. I practically never speak to my brothers and most relatives in Alabama anymore. Since they know I am an agnostic and thus have no church I go to, and that I totally reject their racism and associate with Blacks (and a zillion other ethnic flavors in a large university town) and think nothing of it other than how great it is, I now live so far outside their sphere of imposed perception of reality that we have not only nothing to talk about, but usually conversations devolve into angry shouting matches and exchanged insults.
I just don’t have the patience anymore for white redneck cracker relatives who honestly are so ignorant they believe Obama has no birth certificate, is a secret Muslim, and who are so freakin’ stupid they slide effortlessly from one right wing talking point to the next, socialism, fascism, you name it, and clearly have no flippin’ idea what the words coming out of their mouths mean. Oh, and don’t forget the guns. You know, the ones Obama is going to take away from them.
Loonies and maroons. Sad really, but more than that, scary as hell sometimes.
And of course all this with Faux Noise Network always blaring on the TV in the background in their home.
someguy
The concern trolling about how we need an effective opposition party is really funny. As if. Two left / center left parties would be fine. Mere partisan sniping will be enough to keep the parties honest, or at least as honest as could be expected. It’s not like any conservative positions are worth having, and insofar as the Republican Party is distinct from conservatism, it’s comprised of ofay corporatist boobs like Frum – who want the party to favor progressive taxes, abortion, legalize drugs, push gay marriage and peacenikery, in other words to do an ideological reverse and move left of the Dems. Like that’ll happen.
The key is to keep the two standard deviations below the norm mouth breathers, the 40% or so of the population who voted for McCain (UntroubledBySentience-Americans?) from voting again. Paint the Republican Party as too librull, too secular, too eeeevil, too taxy, and just plain too ridiculous and socially unacceptable, make it smell toxic to them, and they’ quit and stay home. Most of their voters are from less educated parts of the country, they shouldn’t be too hard to convince – shit if Dubya could convince them twice and they don’t give up on religion and war, you’re not exactly talking about the sharpest knives in the breadbox. Keep ’em home and leave the field to a couple parties that actually give a shit about our welfare.
Failing that good ol’ Republican voter suppression tactics would be fine with me. Sauce for the goose and all.
slightly_peeved
Considering we know the cost per capita of the French system is comparable with other systems and much lower than the cost of the US system, how is this an issue? It’s an issue with the French tax system and how they choose to pay for their system, rather than the system per se.
Since the US system is much more expensive, and the cost of the US system is increasing more rapidly (Ezra Klein’s had some good graphs on this recently), they have the same problem. It’s just that the US’s employer-based system shifts that burden to businesses, rather than the government.
If I remember correctly, I’ve heard three complaints about the cost of US healthcare: firstly, the government costs are increasing. Secondly, the cost for businesses is a drain on productivity. Thirdly, the personal premiums are large. You’ve pointed out that the French also have the first problem, but it’s well-established that they don’t have the other two.
Name one thing the US system has that’s worth paying twice the price of other systems. Note that many systems with public healthcare also have a parallel private system (Australia, France, Germany, the UK), so being able to pay for better/quicker care isn’t one of them.
bob h
Only historical amnesia and the coming of the right charismatic yahoo in the Reagan-Bush mold will give the Republicans another shot at power. My guess is that this will take a generation or more. Until then, they only incriminate themselves with their stupidity and confusion, and should be advised to be silent.
tootiredoftheright
@MTiffany:
“dyed-in-the-wool tree-huggers that per kilowatt-hour generated nuclear power is far safer than any other source of electricity bar none, or try telling the true believers of the social justice movement that progressive taxation where the maximum marginal rates are above 50% are in fact a disincentive to work”
Ah what is safe about nuclear waste? You do know right that to get even to a quarter of the US energy needs to be provided by nuclear power would take several Yucca mountains to store the byproducts each costing tens of trillions of dollars as well as the huge cost in building the reactors along with the revelant facilities such as the security buildings? Also sure they may operate safe nowadays but when a disaster strikes either natural, or man made by deliberate act i.e. terrorism or incompetance a nuclear disaster could kill millions.
Also tell me why is a marginal tax rate above 50% a disincentive to work when the years when we had that which was most of the 20th century a time of huge economic prosperity? Only times when we had lower then 30% were the years preciding the great depression and the depression now. There are these things called exemptions and if someone makes several hundred thousand a year and by working more earns several hundred thousand more they still have far more money by working harder then they would by not working harder.
aimai
@https://balloon-juice.com/?p=21606#comment-1243120 Woodrowfan:
The thing to remember when you are thinking about the “piss of the libs” thing is that the majority of republican voters are not interested in power or policy, they are simply reactive in their reactionarieness. That goes for younger democratic voters, as well. There are lots of people in this country–and perhaps I made a mistake even calling them voters–who root for a political team, cheer and rage over its wins and losses, but never even buy a ticket and couldn’t do more than tell you what they heard on the radio about their team.
I live in a blue blue state and the guys who worked on my house were divided between dems and republicans but in the end very few of the working class guys actually voted. They had feelings about what was going on, and they had angry ideas about politicians in general and dems in particular, but their daily rants and bumper stickers did not incline them to actually *vote*.
And that is the funniest part of the RNC struggle to scare the pants off people years in advance of the next vote. If you scare them so much that they hide in their houses instead of voting your plan has really backfired.
aimai
Jennifer
@Brachiator:
That’s kind of a willfully obtuse response, given that the thrust of my argument was that the market is not open and free as of now, as JC and others also pointed out. Which, you know, is one very big reason why it’s failing to serve so many people.
In other words, it’s ridiculous to pretend that an open and free market for health care is what we have now, as the opponents of health care reform are all guilty of doing.
It’s neither an open market (insurers can and do routinely refuse to insure millions of people) and it’s not “free” either in that we have no choice but pay whatever the insurers charge or risk complete financial ruin, and there are few enough insurers that they can all collude on pricing. It’s also nowhere near being “free” for the simple reason that most of us don’t get to pick our insurer – our employer does it for us. In any really free and open market I can think of, if we decide that paying an additional 30% for profits is excessive, we can buy somewhere else where the company runs a tighter ship and can offer better pricing through control of overhead and/or making lower profits. Not so in health care.
It’s not a free market in any sense of the word. It’s more of monopoly which we all must support if we want even the slightest chance of being protected from financial ruin (though even then it doesn’t do such a hot job). We have no alternative and anyone who suggests that we do – that there is a true “free market” solution to this problem – in which all parties involved have full freedom of choice and the market strives to serve as many as possible – is being dishonest.
In other words, you think it’s fine to continue with a system that routinely refuses to serve a large part of the population because – surprise! – at some point in their lives they’ve had a medical problem.
It’s not about my personal situation, though there are millions in this boat – it’s about the notion that we should allow private, for-profit entities to dictate to third parties what possible career options are open to them, through denial of coverage. Bob might well be able to earn twice as much working as a free-lancer, but thanks to the mild heart attack he had 10 years ago, this is not an option available to him, unless of course he wants to risk losing everything he’s worked for his entire life by going without insurance.
If that’s the case, why don’t you list what those other choices are? Is there a magic health insurance fairy who visits the self-employed people the health insurers refuse to offer policies to, at any price, and leaves health coverage under their pillows while they sleep?
oblong55
“Now the money class doesn’t trust Republicans and a drooling hodgepodge of xenophobes, nativists, torture fans, religious fanatics, racists and militiamen camped out in the cafeteria kicked Christopher Buckley to the curb.”
That’s fine, the money class shifted effortlessly to their well prepared back-up plan, the Democratic party. It looked dicey for a few weeks, but pretty soon business as usual returned with FIRE dictating terms to the treasury, etc.
Woodrowfan
the thing about the “Pissing off the liberals” is that it’s usually something that they just think will piss us off because of their warped world view. For example, I recently saw a bumper sticker that said something like “piss off a liberal: work and be happy in your job.” WTF?? Why on God’s green Earth would I be mad that someone was happy in their job, unless they were a mob enforcer or something? It makes sense on wingnut world I guess, if you assume that liberals hate people with jobs, but in the real world it makes no sense. It’s like saying “piss off a liberal; enjoy an ice cream cone.” HUH? Unless I was on the fringe of PETA and had some warped ideas about dairy products why would enjoying ice cream make me angry?
In other cases the RW “thing that pisses liberals off” just makes us think they’re idiots. Like the idea that instead of turning off your lights for an hour to save energy, you turn EVERYTHING in your house on to waste energy. Um, ok, whatever. The logical progression of that idea is to piss of the left by converting all your assets to cash and setting fire to the cash to pollute the air. All it does is confirm to the left that many on the right are idiots.
All “piss off the left” says to me is that wingers are still, emotionally, about 7 years old, picking their noses to gross out their sister…
Ash Can
@Eric:
Because I’m sure Joe Biden doesn’t read newspapers either. Also.
(As for Limbaugh, I’d actually hesitate to call him an idiot, per se. Quite the contrary, in fact; he’s figured out how to get little more than a toxic personality to pay great dividends to himself, and he’s hastening the wreckage of both a major political party and a media empire in the process. When the smoke clears, he’ll be able to wash his hands of the whole mess and retire to Easy Street, and Clear Channel and the GOP will still be wrecked. Pretty impressive, if you ask me.)
Woodrowfan
Aimai: true that.
Margarita
You meant cottage industry, no doubt. But now I can’t help thinking how much better off we’d have been if young George had gone into custom-closet installations. He could have railed against all the Ikea heretics he wanted, and we could have safely ignored his paranoid mutterings about “freedom meatballs.”
tofubo
That would be protecting the money class from the danger of social mobility via Social Security, healthcare and progressive taxation
i’m going to steal (w/credit) that definition, just letting you know
Davis X. Machina
Begs the question whether only the efficient is desirable….
The freedom, silly.
Dusty
@Eric
When did the Democratic Party line up behind Joe Biden? When has he ever been the Democratic nominee for President? When (in the last twenty years, at least) has he ever had the kind of grassroots enthusiasm that Sarah Palin has? When have Democrats ever had to run to the nearest microphone to apologize for criticizing Joe Biden the way the Republicans have for Limbaugh?
Sure, he’s the Vice President now. But Obama picked him because he thought he could be useful from a governing standpoint, not because he thought the Democratic Party would line up behind Joe Biden, not the way McCain hoped the Republican Party would line up behind Sarah Palin.
omen
happened to catch on cspan reps. latourette (r-oh) and kucinich press conference on the chrysler closings. some interesting charges were being made against the obama car task force. charges that need to be answered:
-tax payer money is being used to close down plants as a way to open up imports from china.
-gm asked dealerships to help sustain them by ordering a higher number of car than normal. once the cars got there, gm told the dealers their contracts were being terminated and they weren’t buying back the cars, as was the custom.
what wasn’t mentioned was the impact of the hedge fund players who balked at taking the cut offered which drove the process into bankruptcy.
one republican at the press conference was marveling how they were in agreement with not only kucinich but also nader.
but the one comment that made me gasp was a republican who praised carter’s handling back when chrysler first needed a bailout. i have never, ever, ever heard a republican praise carter for anything my entire life.
Amanda
Thank you for the link to the 2000 Dem party platform — reading the section on terrorism is beyond earie. There was even language in there about not demonizing the population from whence terrorists might be from.
I realize that Democrats often — frequently — don’t follow their platform when in office. But just the fact that that verbiage was debated and approved at the 2000 Convention…makes me so sad all over again that Al Gore was robbed and thus so were the rest of us, who would have preferred a non-“24”-based response to 9/11…or even trying to — gasp — prevent it! Sigh…
Great discussions on health care in this thread. Count me as yet one more American who has stayed in a job I don’t like because of health care, and who has been without health care coverage twice in 4 years due to not being able to afford Cobra coverage. Our system stinks to high heaven. Give me the imperfections of the French/British/Canadian/German whatever system any day of the week. I would gladly pay more in taxes, too. Our health care system is a cancer on our country and until we solve it we will continue our slide to 3rd world status and not be able to compete with our global competitors — not to mention the human cost which is immense and disgusting.
I’m fairly convinced that the only way we will get true universal care is if it is pitched as a patriotic measure and/or the big business community fights for it on the basis of their self interest. I wish I was wrong…but those seem to me to be the only levers that might keep the uninformed masses from responding to the right wing’s messaging against health care reform, or in the case of the business community, have the powerto get what they want in this country.
Kirk Spencer
@Amanda:
I keep saying this and nobody listens – the part I emphasized is why I think we WILL get true universal health care. I’ve been saying this since February of 2007, when the CEO of Walmart, the president of the SEIU, and several other union and business bosses gathered together to publicly state they were working to get universal health care passed.
see this, for example.
Since that point, the question has not been “if”, it’s been “what are the details?”
Not when. This organization says, “By 2012.” At this point I think the smart thing from the health care industry point of view is to get the best deal it can now, because in 2011 they’re going to have even less swing.
Brachiator
@slightly_peeved:
Because cost per capita alone does not tell you everything you need to know about how effectively a country is financing its health care system.
There ain’t no such thing as “the system per se.” How you pay for and deliver health care are real, tangible issues. how you sustain a health care system as costs rise is a real, tangible issue.
This is not entirely the case, according to a recent Boston Globe story on the French system:
A health care system which creates hiring disincentives is quite a drain on productivity. Expanding taxes reduces amounts available for investment.
Freedom from doctor’s strikes on the national level?
And I’m not sure whether we would be willing to adopt this aspect of the French system:
Wage control and free medical schools. Why not tuition-free business schools?
conumbdrum
I’m currently reading Rick Perlstein’s stunning “Before the Storm,” his history of the 1964 Goldwater/Johnson election. (His far better-known book “Nixonland” picks up where this one ends.) What strikes me most strongly about this story is that in the early Sixties, Goldwater was the Ultimate Conservative, the perfect candidate for them as found Tricky Dick too liberal. Hell, even the John Birchers loved Barry.
And yet, and yet… by today’s standards, Goldwater would be condemned by Red State, Limbaugh, Malkin, Hannity, the NRO and their ilk for being a flagrant RINO. Pro-choice, pro-gay rights, opposed to the religious right (imagine a Republican politician of our time publicly declaring that Jerry Falwell needed a good ass-kicking!), and, as Tim so beautifully put it, adamantly opposed to torture and government surveillance… Jesus, even Charlie Crist ain’t that progressive!
If you had stated in the public square, circa 1962, that Barry Goldwater was too liberal for your tastes, 99.99% of the voting populace would have written you off as either certifiably insane or an Nazi… but nearly half a century later, such a declaration would scarcely raise an eyebrow. That’s how far the GOP has shifted rightward – and proof of how flat-out fucked they are.
Panurge
Also @amanda:
If this is true, what kept us from making the pitch that way for so long? Tribalism, maybe? (I.e., “if that pitch works that’ll leave the same old Establishment squares in control”.)
It reminds me of a quote from C.S. Lewis: “If God were a Kantian, who would not have us till we came to Him from the purest and best motives, who could be saved?” I know most people here are probably agnostics at least, but work with me here. It seems equally important to many liberals that universal health care be approved for the right reason–namely pure compassion–as that it come about at all. Our insistence on this may be part of the reason it’s taken so damn long. Why be afraid of a patriotic pitch? Isn’t this your country, too??
slightly_peeved
In Australia and the UK, the majority of healthcare spending is paid for out of general government income. In this case, healthcare is just another set of lines in a budget. Australia does have particular tax breaks for people that take out private health insurance, but if they were revoked or altered (as they are doing now) it doesn’t directly affect care in any way. It’s money in, money out. Therefore the issue of how to pay for a healthcare system can be decoupled from what to fund in a healthcare system. The main things we need to know to go from one to ther other are how much the healthcare system costs, and how much it may cost in future. The per capita cost tells us the first.
As for the second, I’ll point you to Ezra Klein’s recent post on the subject here.
(IClick the link for the graph)
As for freedom from national doctor’s strikes, you are aware that this is France you’re talking about, right? Striking is a national pastime. It’s just as likely that all the US doctors would all take up rugby and develop a liking for Jerry Lewis as a result of adopting the French system. Plenty of other government-run healthcare systems don’t have national strikes. Plenty of other parts of the French economy do.
Oh, and in a direct answer to your question: no. National strikes are NOT worth paying twice the price for the healthcare system. More people die in the US for lack of insurance than would die in France for doctors’ striking; the life expectancy metrics bear that out.
On the issue of doctor’s conditions: French doctors never have to spend their day arguing with an HMO. They don’t have to hire other people to argue with HMOs, or to fill out different sets of paperwork for every HMO, because the system is far more standardized than the US. In Australia, the process of approving a claim with a private insurer is instant, and handled electronically. I swipe my private insurance card, the amount covered is deducted, and I pay the rest.
If you told people that by becoming a doctor, they could go to college completely free, spend their time treating patients according to their conditions (as opposed to treating patients according to their insurance company) and make twice the amount of the average worker, I still think people would be lining up to be doctors. They certainly still are in Australia, despite the relatively lower salary.
Eric
Oh please. Obama picked Biden because he thought Biden would be “useful from a governing standpoint”? Laughable on its face. For one thing, nobody picks a VP to help govern. VP picks are made to help get you elected. If Obama really wanted Biden’s help he would have made the guy a cabinet secretary, especially at State.
Obama picked Biden because Obama was seen as weak on foreign policy. Well, Biden is weak there too, but he’s about as good as it gets for a national Democrat. I have this theory the real reason for the Biden pick was assassination insurance. Nobody wants to see Joe Biden at the helm – not Democrats, not Republicans, not independents. Obama would be safe at a KKK rally, with the Kleagles and what not moving obstacles out of his way in case he should trip and injure himself.
McCain picked Palin because… well, he picked her because nobody was planning to vote for McCain. Even Republicans were only planning to pull McCain’s lever as a vote against Obama. Palin is a pretty successful governor, so it’s not a stretch to think she’d be a good president. She doesn’t know how to deal with ambush interviews like Couric’s, but that will come in time.
I’m always amused at the judgments people on the left make about intelligence. Gore and Kerry were thought to be so much more intelligent than Bush, and yet somehow they had worse grades and worse standardized test scores. For every Palin gaffe you can find I can find one of Obama’s (dude, 57 states?). Did you notice him thanking William Gates for his job as defense secretary? I always wondered what Bill would do after leaving Microsoft.
tootiredoftheright
@Eric:
Ahem Biden has been on lots of intelligence breifings etc. You would think you would have at least consulted the all powerfull google before speaking about someone’s expierance.
United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations learn what that is.
Also Bush did far worse and his grades were what were known as gentleman’s grades meaning they were fudged in his favor. He would have been kicked out if his family weren’t alumni and major donors.
” every Palin gaffe you can find I can find one of Obama’s (dude, 57 states?). ”
snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp a gaffe due to exhausation or a perceived gaffe as is often the case with Biden is way different then a gaffe caused by ignorance with willfull ignorance being the huge evil as evidenced by Palin.
Eric
I’m well aware Biden has been to a few meetings. Seriously, that’s your idea of foreign policy experience? Seriously?
Oh, I see. Bush got the old gentleman’s grades, but Gore and Kerry didn’t. Sure, it’s not like Gore had a senator for a father or anything. Did Bush get the old “gentleman’s standardized test scores” as well? And there’s no evidence Bush would have been kicked out of anything without his family’s money. That was all just smoke for the rubes.
Oh, right. When Obama says something stupid it can only be because of exhaustion, whereas when Palin says something stupid it can only be an indication of a room temperature IQ. They have a two-for-one sale on double standards?
So I’m kind of curious what your take is on closing Gitmo. When Obama said six months, was he lying or was he being stupid?
LD50
Gore and Kerry didn’t need them.
The difference being, Palin says nothing *but* stupid things.
But that’s okay, I’m sure her dimiwittedness makes her even more of a hero to you.
Eric
Just out of curiosity, do you have any sort of evidence for this theory, that somehow Bush was raised above his fellow classmates because of… wait, why was that again? Because his family had money? Because his dad was a Senator? You’re really not making a compelling argument here.
I don’t see that Palin said anything more idiotic or with more frequency than Obama or Biden. What I see is you explaining away everything the Democrats said that didn’t make sense. And it’s not just what they said. Where does gifting a legally blind guy from England as set of region 1 DVDs fall on the intelligence scale?
LD50
I guess you were so full of starbursts last fall you weren’t actually watching the news.
tootiredoftheright
“I’m well aware Biden has been to a few meetings. Seriously, that’s your idea of foreign policy experience? Seriously?
”
They lead the foreign policy legislation of the US. In other words they debate what we do when dealing with foreign countries. The commitee is one of the oldest in the country.
The hold the hearings meant to determine who becomes the Secretary of State and oversee the funding, training, arm sales for the allies of the United States as well as overseeing foreign aid programs.
You have no real clue how goverment works do you? Nor how long he has been on that commitee as well as on the Judicary commitee. It’s been over two decades. With dozens of meeting each year. Reading tens of thousands of reports that would make your head spin.
gwangung
Um, yeah. You do know that the Senate hammers out considerable foreign policy, don’t you? As in, primarily in the Foreign Relations Committee? What? Do you think Congress exists only to rubber stamp the Executive Branch?
Your comment sounds as dumb as Rep. Barton’s comment to Secretary Chu.