Right now the U.S. political alternatives are three:
1. Absent yourself from two-party politics, howling in the wilderness, advocating positions broadly opposed by the public (i.e., "taking on etc."); 2. Complain like hell, end up voting Democratic 'cause it's never as awful as the GOP 3. Confine y'self to constructive commentary, trying to make inferior deals a little bit better
I'll grant you none of these seem to work very well. Better ideas are always welcome.
I defend my position that the 'taking on' option is broadly opposed because it entails lotsa new taxes/bigger Gov and the public is highly susceptible to appeals going in the other direction, however contrary to their interest and they could conceivably be persuaded otherwise. That notwithstanding, #1 is a reasonable option. The better question is why more people don't opt for it. And because the don't, how much good does it do to advocate it?
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 2:28 PM, ken hanly <northsunm at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Its the territory that you live in because you refuse to take on the big health insurers and as a result their lobbyists craft the reform. As long as leftists accept this as the given territory to work within reform will be a sham. Doesn't the government insist that people buy insurance under pain of being fined and with government subsidising premiums of those with lowest incomes? This is less a case of compromise than regulatory capture in which the insurance corporations profit from govt. imposed regulations.
>
>
>
>
> Blog: http://kenthink7.blogspot.com/index.html
> Blog: http://kencan7.blogspot.com/index.html
>
>
> --- On Mon, 1/11/10, Max Sawicky <sawicky at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> From: Max Sawicky <sawicky at verizon.net>
>> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Good point from National Review
>> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>> Date: Monday, January 11, 2010, 2:02 PM
>> If the new employer has group
>> coverage, you'll get that, just like before.
>> If he doesn't, you can't bring your old policy with you but
>> at least you'll
>> have access to the new menu. How good or bad it will
>> be remains to
>> be seen, but it will provide a choice not currently
>> available.
>>
>> The change for the better is certainly in doubt, but there
>> seems no
>> case for a change for the worse.
>>
>> Since people will be required to buy into the new system if
>> they lack
>> other coverage, I'd say there will be pressure to improve
>> its inevitable
>> inadequacies, with public money if necessary. I think
>> that's why the
>> GOP hate hate hates the prospect of the reform. It
>> commits the
>> Gov to perfecting its vehicle for universal access to
>> health insurance.
>>
>> The inscos don't hate it because they get a piece of the
>> action.
>> I'll repeat a point I made before: under a welfare
>> state, as opposed
>> to social-democracy, the state coopts providers (in this
>> case,
>> insurance companies) into public benefits, gaining
>> political support
>> at the cost of some quality in the result. That's the
>> territory we
>> live in.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > RE: As things stand, the boss can always drop one plan
>> for something
>> > cheaper, and worse, if his employees let him get away
>> with it. What
>> > is different?
>> >
>> > [WS:] But how about his other point that you may still
>> lose your insurance
>> > when you change jobs? Many corporations have some
>> kind of waiting period
>> > for new employees .
>> >
>> > The way I understand his argument is not that it is
>> Obama's fault but Obama
>> > is creating false hopes with his "reform" - a point
>> that resonates with me.
>> >
>> > Wojtek
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Max Sawicky <sawicky at verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> This whole spiel never made any sense. And who
>> the fuck is Deroy
>> >> Murdock, if not some political hack. The fear
>> apparently is, you are
>> >> sitting there with employer provided insurance,
>> some alternative shows
>> >> up (public option, different plan becomes
>> available, either of which
>> >> are cheaper and crappier), and you get switched to
>> something worse.
>> >>
>> >> The terms of your implicit deal with the boss is
>> you get some $$$ and
>> >> some benefits. Absent some kind of explicit,
>> legally-binding
>> >> contract, there is no more reason under ObamaCare
>> to arbitrarily
>> >> reduce your compensation than before. If bosses
>> want some fig leaf
>> >> they can call health insurance and cram it down
>> their workers'
>> >> throats, they can do it now.
>> >>
>> >> As things stand, the boss can always drop one plan
>> for something
>> >> cheaper, and worse, if his employees let him get
>> away with it. What
>> >> is different?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Left-Wing Wacko
>> >> <leftwingwacko at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> > *
>> >> >
>> >> http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWQ4MDI5ZDU0YjAxNmM5MzEzYzc1NjM0ZDkyNDRlYWE
>> >> > =*
>> >> > **
>> >> > *Yes We Can Lose Our Health Insurance
>> >> > *Kiss your current coverage goodbye.
>> >> >
>> >> > By Deroy Murdock
>> >> ___________________________________
>> >> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>> >>
>> > ___________________________________
>> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>> >
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>