Thursday, March 25, 2010

Chill Out, People

My friend Jeff asks about some of the mildly violent and strongly threatening blowback to the recently passed health care legislation, and wonders why liberals don't do this. Thing is, they don't, but the left does. You just don't always hear about it. The far right and the far left do a lot of violent and stupid things the rest of us ought to reject. The resort to guns (or bricks and cinderblocks, which have been both thrown through Democrat legislators' windows, and dropped on buses of Republican delegates to the national convention) is the beginning of the end of civil society and democratic self rule. You don't hear about it necessarily because the righty press reports nicely on leftwing violence. The mainstream media which, aside from Fox and talk radio is slightly to somewhat center left liberal, reports on leftwing violence. A lot of you guys probably don't listen much to the other side but each reports on the other.

Thing is, rightwing violence isn't conservative violence, it's rightwing, just as leftist violence isn't liberal, it's leftwing. The use by conservatives and liberals of the extremists of either side to discredit the mainstream philosophy of the other makes me laugh at first, then ill later. As a rhetorical tactic, it doesn't win anybody to your side, but I think it does a good job of marginalizing and maybe radicalizing quite a few folks. In the short run it's probably emotionally satisfying (see, e.g. Ann Coulter and Keith Olberman) but in the long run it's going to be disastrous if our national arguments are framed as "you're either with me on the issue of marginal tax rates, or you're evil." Sure, the results of some policies may be evil, but I don't think most people get to their political viewpoints out of mal intent, quite the opposite in fact.

On the larger issues, as a civil liberties attorney I find it highly ironic (in a painful-ironic, not Sarah Silverman 'hah, that's funny-ironic" way) that the same people, generally on the right, who were unworried about the encroachment of the state on general civil liberties two years ago are now wildly upset about this most recent encroachment on economic liberty, while most of the people who were near hysterical about the depredations of the PATRIOT Act two years ago, or at least grimly muttering about Bush's fascism, cheered when Congress handed extensive control over 1/6th of the nation's economic life and a big zone of personal privacy to the government.

I feel lonely as somebody who sees both sides of the coin and sees our foundational principles being chucked out in the interest of dependency on an ever-larger central government power. I am not anti-government at all, you need to have an effectively functioning federal government, but I am realistic about the ability of the government to be a savior of us all. The hope that it will is misguided as prophecy, useless as a guiding principle in the crafting of public policy, and is ultimately going to be truly dismal in execution, in little ways well beyond our imagining today. Statism is *always* shabby and dehumanizing, whether its origin is in rightish or leftish thought.

The Federal Government - not just ours, but every other one in every other country larger than a mid-sized city - is simply not good at the details. It is too big and too distant to know the key details about your situation, too busy to be effective at handling the details, and not interested in looking out for your interests in particular, just some general notion of the common good. The problem with that is that you are not the only stakeholder with an interest in the common good; there are a lot of other stakeholders who have interests that are opposed to yours. In the sausage-making baby-splitting exercise of governance, your needs are not paramount in a nation of 300+ million people, some of whom can afford personal lobbyists or Senate seats.

It appears to me to be a fundamental truth that the bigger an organization gets, the less humane its results will be. I've never experienced the opposite. As a corollary, I think the bigger that a government gets, with its police and economic and social and regulatory and carmaking and medical power, the less likely it is that its touch will be sensitive when it lays its hands on you. I think that's true regardless of whether it is sticking a piece of electronics up your hindquarters for police surveillance, or for detection of an enlarged prostate. I'd much rather that those powers be left in the hands of your state, where your vote matters more, or better yet in your hands. You should be able to say, "pull the damn thing out, I've had enough."

But that's just me. Maybe I should be more trusting of government, at least when people of my own ideology happen to be in power. Seems to work for most people. The only problem with that is that the power I give my guys to mess with you, doesn't leave office when your guys take over.

--------------------------------------------------

And in bicycling news, Delardening II: The Return of My Waistline seems to be working. The first hopeful sign is that my pants did not whimper when I pulled them on this morning. I was also able to get my belt tightened up to the Seriously Fat Notch without cutting off all circulation to my legs. Oh, happy day!

I think I'll celebrate this accomplishment with a rest day.*


*But seriously. My legs are sore and I have a ridiculously bad schedule today. No choice but to have a rest day. I'd ride, were it an option.

10 comments:

Boz said...

I'm with you on this strangely played out political opera. I can see both sides, since I'm not affiliated w/ any party (I wouldn't join a party that would have me as a member.) Being without health insurance sucks big time, as I have found out the last 1 1/2 years. I just recently got on the Minnesota Care plan, which our right-leaning governor has tried to squash repeatedly. It's a plan you pay premiums on a scale to your income. So, I pay $108 a month for decent health insurance. Beats nothing at all, since I couldn't afford COBRA after the divorce at $1000 per month.

Yes, now we have to have health insurance. Oh! such an intrusion on my rights! Wait, I have to have insurance on my car to legally operate it on the highways and byways of my state. You see where I'm going with this. It's not just to protect me, but you as well. If I go to the hospital and can't pay, that cost is passed on to everyone else, then medical procedure rates increase, insurance rates increase, and the cycle just keeps on repeating.
Is this plan going to work? Who knows, but this is the same logic that Richard Nixon used to try to get a similar plan going. And Tricky Dick was a shrewd guy, but just a bit too paranoid for his own good.

Jim said...

You have to have car insurance - minimum liability coverage - to protect other identifiable people from having to pay a price for your own negligence.

The health insurance requirement is more like requiring people to carry collision coverage on a paid-off car - forcing you to protect yourself from personal misfortune. It's like the difference between a law prohibiting punching other people in the face, and a law prohibiting you from punching yourself in the face.

Big Mikey said...

Jim, don't be so general. The point of the legislation is to cover people that want to be covered but don't have the financial means or opportunities to obtain coverage. It simply isn't acceptable in a western society to let people face ruin because they get sick.

Granted the govt isn't the most efficient way to go about it, but you can't leave it up to the corporations; that would be worse for us.

Jim said...

Mikey, we aren't insuring 30 million people. They've already admitted this will only reach perhaps 10 million, at the cost of putting 270 million other people's health care under federal supervision. Meanwhile, 20 million or so people won't be reached by it for whatever reason.

I'm sure at least 10 million people have trouble putting food on the table too. Does that mean we should nationalize farming?

Kyle Jones said...

Jim,
I am fearful that I wont be able to get insurance because I had a heart ablation 3 years ago. If amy gets out of the military we are probably going to have to pay for my insurance out of my pocket and not through an employer. I work in insurance and see how many people get rejected for things that are out of their control. My sister is having problems getting her insurance to pay for her treatment of a brain tumor, at the age of 26 she is kind of hosed. The only thing I see that is good is that it will help people who will need it.

On the other hand I have a similar view to what John Stossell Presents Here
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WnS96NVlMI

I believe that we should pay for services like check-ups and physicals out of pocket. Health Care comes out of your pocket, Health insurance should cover cost of operations/surgeries and really expensive diagnostic testing. I do believe that employers should stop providing health insurance because they actually control what you get, so in a sense working for an employer is a socialistic system right there.

I know I can not change anyones minds because we are all right. Health Care should be paid for by us to spur personal responsibility for our own health more than putting us on the pill. It will make doctors take time to educate instead of just medicating people. Health insurance should be available for the big shit stuff. You know me. I am pretty healthy but I do not want to lose my house because I cant afford a cancer treatment because 1) insurance is way to expensive and 2) my preexisting condition of heart ablation will hinder my ability to get coverage.

I think the bill has its heart in the right place but like most things it is flawed.

Chuck Wagon said...

The car insurance analogy is both good and bad. The simplest way not to need car insurance is to have no car. A little harder to do with medical insurance. But if only drunk drivers and bad drivers got car insurance, it'd be multiples more expensive than it is. It takes a lot of healthy 24 year olds to balance out the aged and infirm like me.

The biggest problem that I see with comparing the US to European style liberal democracies (think Scandanavia) and their policies is that we don't have the same mindset as individuals that they do. The Danes are happy to have high taxes because they by and large think of themselves as being on the same team, and act according to such. I think that if we had the same social safety net that they have, people would abuse it to death within hours. Here, the every man for himself attitude is much more prevalent.

And without having become any sort of expert on this bill, you freaking know that they pandered their asses off to all those hardworking Americans who've been subjected to absolutely preventable diseases by MacDonald's and Marlboro.

In many cases, legislation isn't the problem, we are. And our increasing polarization and echo chamber media reinforces that.

Boz said...

Chuck Wagon - It's kinda strange that the Euros embrace the National health care systems and many here think it's socialism, while they are all considered democracies. Australia has a hybrid system, and I don't hear too much bitching about it from them. Maybe Big Mike could shed some insight.

Another though, since most us don't really know what was in this bill, how come there were over 4,500 lobbyists hammering away for it in congress? That's a direct indicator that someone is going to make a few sheckles when the dust settles. I'm currently in school studying for a health care management degree. I think my timing was good....

Bluenoser said...

From up here in the land of beavertails, I for the life of me can't understand Jim why you, as you call yourself, the greatest country on the face of the earth want to kill each other over your health??

We, your, poor neighbours to the north, who only have as many people in our whole country as you are leaving out of your system can make a go of it.

We might have to wait awhile for things but it does get done and well.

-B

Jim said...

Bluenoser, Canada does okay but Canada isn't the U.S., no matter how many of your comedians move to LA. Chuck points out that the Scandanavian version of socialism mostly works out because of monoculturalism. Let me also note that they are tiny countries with populations the size of major U.S. cities. I think NYC could run a great health care system, partly because it would be very locally oriented and controlled, and if there was a problem, you vote the mayor out, the new guy hires a new health commissioner who tours the hospitals, fires some head docs, and it's done. Canada has 30 million or so people, which is a lot, but again it's the population of two large cities (metro areas anyhow) in the U.S., although the geographic dispersion probably makes it difficult. With 300 million people, many of whom are totally differently situated in geography, socioeconomic status and culture, I don't think it's as simple. Like most solutions the complexity of the system doubles with the square of the problems encountered. The bigger systems in countries that have significant minority populations (France, Germany, Britain) are fraying around the edges, extremely badly in Great Britain's case. It's as if they were burning off the capital invested in the health system long ago...

There's also the matter of our politicians, who most observers seem to think are the worst and most venal crew we've had in DC in a couple generations, which is saying something. This really doesn't bode well. It's not about hostility to the uninsured; I was one not terribly long ago, and I would favor portability and a mandate (which would solve most of the pre-existing conditions problems) along with subsidizing low income people. The new bill doesn't appear to be aimed at covering the 10% of people who don't have insurance, and seems more aimed at corralling the 90% who do. That's why I dislike it.

Calvini said...

Exactly! Where were you wingnuts during the PATRIOT Act? Right on, Jim.