Log in

No account? Create an account
An author of no particular popularity

Jay Lake
Date: 2010-01-20 04:44
Subject: [links] Link salad contemplates the trainwreck of healthcare reform, thanks to MA politics
Security: Public
Tags:christianism, funny, gay, healthcare, language, links, personal, politics, publishing, religion
Dilbert has a difficult conversation — I have in times past had this exact conversation at work. Including the words in question. Language Log gives some analysis.

Scrivener's Error is in fully cry today — I draw your attention to the first item (FBI abuses of the PATRIOT Act — no one could possibly have predicted this!) and the last item (an interesting critique of interesting science fiction criticism).

More on the Christianist idiocy over military rifle scopes — Some Constitutional analysis, among other things.

Speaking of Christianists, more the history of the alleged Haitian pact with the devil cited by the toxic Pat Robertson

Uganda imports anti-gay bigotry from US — Christianism on the hoof, continually persecuting gay and lesbian people on a continent near you.

A Tiny Revolution says it all about the Massachusetts special election — I'll observe for my own part that if this stops healthcare reform, then the GOP strategy of "running out the clock", which they played all last year, will have paid off spectacularly. Meanwhile, the current "best in the world" system will continue to be an eventual death sentence for me personally, with pre-existing condition restrictions and lifetime coverage limitations. So to all my conservative friends opposed to HCR: pray like you've never prayed that you don't get cancer or some other expensive, chronic illness. Liberalism is a side effect of needing something more from society than you can personally give.

?otD: How would you feel about approaching a lifetime coverage limitation in your health insure coverage?

Body movement: 30 minute stationary bike ride
Hours slept: 6.0
This morning's weigh-in: 229.2
Currently reading: Bangkok 8 by John Burdett

Post A Comment | 10 Comments | | Flag | Link

barry_king: Me
User: barry_king
Date: 2010-01-20 14:01 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Very sorry about the healthcare upset. When we lived in the U.S., we had to spend $450/mo. on health care just to cover the possibility of catastrophic coverage. We still had to pay fees and any prescriptions out of pocket (thankfully few). Personally, I'd call that a $5400/year household tax by private industry. An optional one, but who can really call that an option to forego?

When we moved to Canada, our taxes actually went down AND we weren't paying for health insurance privately, so the savings was +$5400. And the knock on benefits are staggering: A person who is willing to be frugal can actually try to make it as an artist without having to risk permanent disability due to poor health coverage in an accident. Why are there so many Canadian comedians in the U.S.? Because comedy pays poorly and takes a lot of practice and time. You can't do that safely down there, but you can do it here. Why? In one word: Healthcare.

You may need a term for a new religion to go along with your christianism*. One that believes that the market is more efficient and more cost-effective despite all the evidence that it allows permanent parasitic dependencies and a boom-and-bust cycle of wanton destruction of resources.

* I prefer Blue-Pill-Jesus, but that's my own private mythology.
Reply | Thread | Link

User: biomekanic
Date: 2010-01-20 17:05 (UTC)
Subject: I get my news from the same place that most American's shouldn't -
The Daily Show. Their report on the MA election included bits where the Dem candidate complains about people expecting her to go outside, into the rain and cold and campaign, spelling the name of the state wrong in ads, and a host of other bits of phoning it in hardcore.

To paraphrase John Stewart, the Democrats are masters of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. As he also said, at no time during the Bush presidency did he enjoy a congress with as large a majority as Obama has, and he did "whatever the fuck he wanted". I do not understand WTF is wrong with these people. Americans want a public option, and they have the reins of power and still can't do anything. Honesty, if this was fiction, I'd have rolled my eyes and tossed the book.
Reply | Thread | Link

User: ulfhirtha
Date: 2010-01-20 18:46 (UTC)
Subject: Re: I get my news from the same place that most American's shouldn't -
Alas, Jon forgets that Bush also didn't have a disciplined minority filibustering everything, requiring 60 votes to get anything done...and when they did try, there were "nuclear option" threats to remove the filibuster. Strange...it looks so rosy to the R's now that they are the minority.

In such an environment, where you need to placate *every* member of your group, and they thus realize their power (see Ben Nelson & Leiberman on this point) to Get Stuff for that vote, you *don't* get public options, or Single Payer, or even negotiated drug prices. You get a milquetoast bill designed to appease everyone with an "issue" about this or that, with some decent elements & plenty of landmines and hope that something better can be made from it later. As Social Security was and Medicare...but without that base, we get bupkis.

Still, I do think Obama learned too much the lesson from Clinton in '94 (HCR done in secret fails) and too little from Bush in '05 (leaving Congress to figure out how to privatize Social Security fails).
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2010-01-20 21:19 (UTC)
Subject: Re: I get my news from the same place that most American's shouldn't -
/bemusedoutsider here/

Coakley did great in the primary (got almost as many votes as her three opponents combined); she was opposing the Obama/Kennedy choice and criticizing the HC bill for the Stupak amendment limiting abortion. After she won, the O/K faction tried to rally round her and took out the Stupak amendment, so she made kumbaya and said she would vote for the non-Stupak version.

This lost her a lot of support. As soon as it began to look like a referendum on Obamacare, her numbers dropped. Now the O/K faction are trying to blame their loss on her.

Coakley did fine till they got involved.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

User: barbarienne
Date: 2010-01-20 17:54 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I just don't understand it. I would think that as I get older and learn more about people, I would understand these things better. I am continually awed and pleased by the different ways people successfully live, and yet I still just can't understand the mind that believes:

(a) who someone else sleeps with is anyone's business but the adults involved
(b) that other people's ill-health is irrelevant and/or something they somehow deserve because they don't have a job that subsidizes their care.

I wonder if big businesses other than health-insurance companies are against HCR because they know half their employees would quit to go be entrepreneurs.

I am phenomenally lucky. I've only been uninsured for very short periods of my life. I pay less for my decent insurance than most people pay for theirs, but it still feels like a lot. Yet I would gladly play double if it meant a public option so all my friends had insurance, and I wouldn't have to worry if my job went kablooie.
Reply | Thread | Link

User: mcjulie
Date: 2010-01-20 17:54 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
HCR isn't dead yet, so I'm not mourning yet.

What I think the HCR fight has shown us is that there may be a majority of Democrats in congress, but that doesn't mean there's a majority of progressives or liberals in congress. Other aspects of Obama's agenda have been accomplished much more easily.

At this point I think the public mood is starting to be "Why the heck is this taking so long? Just pass something and get to work on a jobs bill!"

(Howard Dean needs to be in charge of the DNC again! Stat!)

(Also, Bush didn't actually get *everything* he wanted. Remember when the cornerstone of his second term was supposed to be privatizing Social Security? That got absolutely nowhere, even before the congressional losses in 2006.)

The problem is this: it's the party that's half right against the party that's always wrong.

Unfortunately, that works out to three quarters wrong.
Reply | Thread | Link

A large duck
User: burger_eater
Date: 2010-01-20 17:55 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I've had that same conversation about email, although I was told I lacked "tack."
Reply | Thread | Link

Max Kaehn: Meowist Revolution
User: slothman
Date: 2010-01-20 18:00 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:Meowist Revolution
Given my wife’s interesting collection of exotic medical conditions, I do have considerable worries over lifetime coverage limitations on health insurance. I’m writing my senators this morning to suggest getting rid of the filibuster.
Reply | Thread | Link

Elizabeth Coleman
User: criada
Date: 2010-01-20 20:49 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Which side of the Dilbert conversation were you on? I know I'd sure be on the Dilbert side. Given my 'druthers, I'm incredibly to the point. That's why I tend to keep my mouth shut and be ridiculously polite around people I don't know well.
Reply | Thread | Link

Jay Lake
User: jaylake
Date: 2010-01-20 23:15 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Dilbert's, of course. I was once counseled formally about my use of words such as "brevity" and "concision".
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

my journal
January 2014
2012 appearances