Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>
> Interesting thing I didn't know: though the bill says that inscos
> shouldn't drop people because they got sick, there is no enforcement
> mechanism if they do. And 30 million people will be *forced* to buy
> this crap.
>
I suspect it will turn out to be far worse than our worst nightmares. That 30 million is apt to turn into 40 or 50 million or so as various employers declare, since there is a national health bill we don't have to provide insurance for our employees (and especially for our retired employees) any more. Furthermore, regardless of what the plan _really_ is, it will be almost universally regarded as a national health service, and its horrors will be added to all the reasons people have to distruxt any sort of state social program.
But all that is more or less irrelevant. I want to try to get a different angle on the endless debate on this list (and other similar forums) of whether it "makes a difference" -- with "it" being anything that happens in official politics, whether the passage of a given bill or an election of a president.
It definitely makes a difference to many people whether there is or is not excessive rain in the midwest over the next 10 months. It makes one hell of a difference whether or not there is an earhhquake of great force in California this year. It also makes quite a difference to quite a few people whether Ohio State or Michigan wins the football game next year. The list of things that very definitely make a huge difference is in fact very large, and these differences are often the object of heated conversation in living rooms and bars and dorm lobbies. What all these discussions/debates have in common is that they don't have any effect whatever on the issue they are debating. Vigorously arguing that Q is a better footabll team than P does not effect the score of the gaame. A vigojrous argument over whether or not there will be a 7.7 earhquake in California this year can neither prevent nor cause such an earthquake.
Now the debates on this list over Congressional legislation or presidential elections or bailout progams for the banks are precisely of this sort. They do not and can not make a difference to the outcome of the questions they debate. SA's feeling that the bill should pass did not make and could not make any difference to the Congressional vote. Nor could Doug's opinion make a difference, or mine. Our debate is as empty of material content as a debate over whether Michigan or Ohio will win their game next year.
What I would like us to debate is the question of how, given that we can have no effect whatever on the actions of the U.S. government or the outcome of elections, how can we make a difference that is a difference?
Carrol