« Pizza and Italians | Main | Not even going through the motions Open Thread »

April 03, 2017


McKinney appears to have some distorted ideas about what "the left" thinks. Even the idea that "the left" is well defined and homogeneous enough to "think" anything is a distortion of reality.

One of the reasons to support basic welfare and safety nets is that it allows people to be more productive than they would otherwise be. I don't think many are suggesting giving people whatever they might desire, rather providing the basics so they don't expend all their energy and sanity just trying not to die.

Ours is the wealthiest and most powerful nation-state in the history of mankind ... for now, anyway.

Of course all other developed and civilized countries are parasites leaving their defense (against the developed but uncivilized countries) and the costs of the same to the US and/or are peopled by naturally born slaves not freedom loving real humans like (real) USians. Thus the sustainablity of their systems is mere illusion.
Ihr Glück ist Trug und ihre Freiheit Schein...

vox seems to think single-payer is a big hit on the alt-right:


Having just looked up the translation of that quotation ("Their happiness is deceit and their freedom is illusion", from the Song of Prussia) I think this may be one of the best if not the best uses of quotation I have ever seen on the internet.
Bravo, Hartmut, and not for the first time!

single-payer for white people like us is a big hit on the alt-right

Hartmut, that would make complete sense IF those other countries were spending the money they save on defense on health care. But when they are spending LESS?

Sure, it makes a nice rant for the America Firsters. But it doesn't really track.

wj, in case of doubt just claim that the excess spending on health care is all for US veterans. ;-)

A bit more serious: the claims about nonsustainability are not just made about healthcare but about the whole idea of 'general welfare', i.e. including guaranteed basics for everyone paid by taxes. I think healthcare spending in other countries is not just lower due to the f-ed up nature of the profit-oriented US healthcare system but also due to avoiding some of the conditions that lead to the need for health services, i.e. prevention. I get the impression that in the US there is (now at least) a general aversion to the idea of maintenance as opposed to repairs after breakdown. Wait for the (privatized) bridge to collapse, then get the state to repair it (or to pay you for doing it) instead of keeping it up by spending (=wasting) money for maintenance. Wait till you get really sick, then go to the ER because prevention costs money (too much for many in the first place) etc. How many can still afford the apple a day?
In other words other states put a lot of money into things that may seem to have nothing to do with healthcare but in the long run save far more in healthcare.
I think though that the raw profit motive in the US system is the main factor (followed at some distance by the outright sociopathy and sadism to be found in the decider class).

Actually, the US runs two different models for health care. (Exclusive of the government run health care systems, such as the one which takes care of members of Congress. Including the ones who scream with outrage if the government considers taking care of others.)

On one hand, there are straight pay to fix things health insurance systems. You get sick, you see a doctor, you and/or your insurance company pay the doctor. Or hospital, if required.

On the other, there are HMOs (Health Maintenance Organizations) -- the most prominent of which is Kaiser Permanente, but there are others. The HMOs actually do devote a fair amount of effort to prevention. They do fix problems as required, and some of them also run hospitals. But their preferred way of keeping their costs down is preventative medicine.

HMO's have the reputation though that they save costs mainly by denying claims. Lawyers not lozenges ;-)
At least HMOs were a standard punch line for cynical jokes when I first encountered the acronym about two decades ago.

I can only say that my personal experience, for whatever an anecdote may be worth, does not have HMOs denying claims to anywhere near the extent that other health care insurance companies do. Not even close.

Off topic...but could not resist a link to this.

" the most prominent of which is Kaiser Permanente"

Not outside California necessarily, they don't exist as far as I can tell in New England or Florida.

Not universal, certainly. But is there one which is more widespread?

Interesting link, bobbyp.

It was a good article, bobbyp. Maybe you'll enjoy this one in return.

I did. Thanks, sapient.

bobbyp- I enjoyed the linked article, but I'm not convinced. Trump might be experiencing some cognitive impairment, but he still looks like a genius con artist to me.

I don't think it makes sense to think he's incoherent because his speech is incoherent. His speech still seems to work perfectly for getting the suckers to buy in, and that has always been his main job.

Yes, excellent piece bobbyp. Seems an absolutely fair analysis to me.

Yours too, sapient.

Yours too, sapient.


Ahhh, Elizabeth Drew. Thanks, spaient.

[gah! "sapient"!! Why can't I see this on preview but there it is after post??]

Hillary and sexism: what made her a bad (as in losing to Trump) candidate?

- Too short. Jimmy Carter was the last candidate to win against an obviously taller opponent. Trump is about 9" taller than Hillary. And yes, the electorate is, indirectly, sexist.

- Too shrill. Where "shrill" means speaking authoritatively in a high-pitched voice. And yes, the electorate is, indirectly, sexist.

- Too Washington. Obama was a one-term senator. GW Bush, Bill Clinton, Reagan, and Carter were state governors. (GHW Bush is the only Washington insider to be elected president since Nixon.) Hillary's Washington experience was a disadvantage.

- Too tense. Hillary can't do bonhomie. Which shouldn't matter, but the electorate.

- Too criminal. Well, obviously not compared with Trump, but, however partisan the attacks on her, as Secretary of State she really shouldn't have used her own email server for government business. And she really should have been more scrupulous and open about donations to the Clinton Foundation. Compare Obama, who just didn't get himself into trouble like this.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad