I find it deplorable that many US lefties do not see this fundamental distinction and lump everything under the rubric of "government." In reality, it is th epolitical partiss that are mostly responsioble for the hodgepodge of programs, exemptions, "means-testing" abd a myrid of bureucratic hoops thatwe have - not the civil service.
Seeing that distinction would be helpful in identifying the real enemy - the smooth talking politician, not the bureaucrat.
BTW - Keep it it mind that it is policians, especially senators, who were responsible for killing most progressive programs from WPA programs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration to the public option in the current health care "refiorm." It was also politicans, especially senators, responsible for the darkest repression in the recent US history aka mcCarthyims, aimed mainly, you've guessed it, at government bureaucrats. I challnege everyone on this list to name a single progressive legislation that this fucking chatterbox on the Potomac passed *on its own initiative* (i.e. not rubber stamping initiatives taken by courts, the administration, or pressure groups.)
Wojtek
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
>