Health care reform

@rnstrong asks

Clinton ended up with nothing. Obama may actually make things worse. How did this happen again?

Pretty much everyone who wanted health care reform is now admitting defeat.  Well, everyone but Obama, who just tweeted

We are on the precipice of big changes—the most significant reform of our health care since the passage of Medicare.

Uh, sorry Barack, but Digby has it right:

Nobody’s “getting covered” here. After all, people are already “free” to buy private insurance and one must assume they have reasons for not doing it already. Whether those reasons are good or bad won’t make a difference when they are suddenly forced to write big checks to Aetna or Blue Cross that they previously had decided they couldn’t or didn’t want to write. Indeed, it actually looks like the worst caricature of liberals: taking people’s money against their will, saying it’s for their own good. — and doing it without even the cover that FDR wisely insisted upon with social security, by having it withdrawn from paychecks. People don’t miss the money as much when they never see it.

But you know, as disappointing as it is, I don’t put too much blame on Obama.  As Megan McArdle put it

But the guy got elected to be president of the United States, not Prime Minister of Sweden.  Anyone who seriously entertained the notion that the procedural obstacles to enacting legislation in the United States would suddenly fall away–along with the essentially center-right politics of the American voter–is probably not mature enough to be driving.

She went into more detail on this topic in this post:

Federalist and non-parliamentary democracy:  in most other systems, the head of the government tells the government what to do.  In our system, you need 220 congressmen and 50-60 senators.  There’s no way to implement the sort of technocratic change that reformers envision; the politicians will keep sticking their fingers in the pie.

…

It’s no good saying that well, we should try to be more like the Netherlands–you can’t build a system on the assumption that you will, suddenly and for no apparent reason, be able to import someone else’s political culture.  Progressives are watching the whole health care legislative process with utter dismay as it produces a monster of a bill that not even its mother could love–and trying to love it anyway, on the grounds that it’s a start. … This is the kind of thing the American political system produces.  …

So one problem is our political system leads to bloated legislation, because we need to keep senators (and their lobbyists) happy.

The other problem is that public support for reform just isn’t there.  In order to get a good health care reform bill passed, you first need to win the battle of ideas.  This battle has to be fought over a long period of time.  If progressive news shows continue to focus on the antics of Sarah Palin, Tiger Woods’ affairs and on insulting the very people that would benefit from reform, this isn’t going to happen.  As Bob Somerby put it

For decades, Republicans have peddled a string of familiar claims (described by The Economist as “falsehoods”) about the shape of world health care. We all know what these talking-points are; they come from the side of American politics which actually tries to win. American health care is the best in the world! And: “Socialized medicine” has failed everywhere it’s been tried! And: In England, [insert scare story here!] Republican pols, and conservative talkers, have peddled these claims for decades now. The boys and girls at our liberal journals seem to know that they daren’t push back.In England, commentators are “amazed” by all the distortions. In America, the distortions roll off our liberal backs! And American citizens aren’t amazed; instead, they’re happy with their insurance! They simply don’t know the things they don’t know. More specifically, they don’t know how much of what they hear is bogus. Our side never quite tells them.

The voters don’t know they’re being looted! Who would dare say such a shrill thing? For such reasons, health reform fails.

This is the situation that Obama walked into.  A lot of people recognized that a universal health care bill with real cost savings was not going to pass.  So, you know, this will go in the defeat column for Obama, but I don’t think he had much of a chance to begin with. The same can’t be said for how he has handled other issues (gitmo, afghanistan, etc), but that’s a topic for another day.

Fight Club

I saw a preview for Fight Club just before it was released.  The preview focused on the fights.  To me, it looked like a pretty standard action movie with a lot of violence and explosions. This was confirmed by Roger Ebert’s 2 star review (I usually agree with Ebert)  in which he said “It’s macho porn — the sex movie Hollywood has been moving toward for years, in which eroticism between the sexes is replaced by all-guy locker-room fights.”  Not my kind of movie.  So I passed on it.  I passed on it, that is, until I read Jim Emerson’s fantastic essay on the movie last year:

One of the (many) reasons I probably connect so strongly with David Fincher’s “Fight Club” (1999) is that, by capturing clinical depression more accurately than any other movie I’ve ever seen…, it helped shake me out of the grips of a depression that was sucking me down at the time. I was the only person in the theater convulsed with laughter from beginning to end, because it was liberating, exhilarating, to see the truth of my own inner experience reflected back at me in its funhouse mirror. I recognized myself in the movie, relished the psychological acuteness of what I was seeing, felt its black absurdity resonate in my poor, chemically imbalanced noggin. From the very first images deep inside the human brain, I felt it could not be about anything else, even though I didn’t know where it was going to go from there.

Since then, he has written more about this love story.

Anyway, I saw the movie and liked it a lot.  However, sometimes I don’t know how much I like a movie until months later.  It’s the same way with photos, paintings, music… I generally don’t know if I like a particular work of art until it’s had time to sit on my mind for a while.  Fight Club is one of those movies that I still think about.  Thus, it had an impact on me.  I now consider it a great film.  Kim Morgan recently called it the movie of the 1990s:

It’s not a dumb jock statement of  being a “man.” Rather, it shows how through the alienation of social institutions, and the de-masculination of culture, the rugged individualist is rare …

Fight Club is a multifaceted satire. It attacks not only the dehumanizing, corporate Starbucks/Ikea world we inhabit (and still inhabit – even more), but also self-help philosophies, men’s movements, commercials, TV and, interestingly, movies, but oh-so cleverly. The way cinema is blamed for contributing to real-life violence is not only woven into the picture, but it became a reality lobbed at the movie upon release.

Why? times two

Why are some so passionate in their belief that global warming isn’t anything to be concerned about?

Can someone explain to me why these people hate this climate science so much? I mean, I get that they don’t like gays and think women should stay barefoot and pregnant. I understand that they hate taxes that pay for things that help people they don’t like. Evolution — yeah, that’s obvious.

But global warming? Why? Is it all about their trucks or what? I just don’t get where the passion comes from on this one.

I don’t know if global warming is happening, if it’s caused by human activities or if it’s something we should be worried about.  The evidence seems to indicate that it is.  But if the planet isn’t getting warmer that would be great.  I just want to know the truth. Why isn’t everyone like that?  Why are some people so convinced that there is nothing to worry about and so passionately against the scientists who have a different opinion?

My other question  for today is why won’t politicians or newspaper columnists publicly acknowledge that Israel is a nuclear power?  Given all of the conflicts in that region, and given our heavy involvement, it seems like a relevant fact that the public should be aware of.  But here is Feingold dodging the issue:

Question:  “Senator,  do you know of any country in the Mideast that has nuclear weapons?”

Feingold: “I’m not free to comment on that.”

Question: “Why can you not say that Israel is a nuclear power, Senator?”

Feingold: “I basically think it is, but I’m not somebody who is privy to all the details on that. Pakistan clearly is, Pakistan concedes it, admits it.”

Question: “Do you have an estimate as to how many nuclear weapons Israel would have?”

Feingold: “I do not.”

The great debate

Hi Kids!  I’m TV’s Kirk Cameron!  I’m here to talk to you today about creation.  Now, you might have heard some crazy stories from your friends who try to convince you that God doesn’t exist.  But did you know the existence of God can be proven, 100 percent, absolutely, without the use of faith?  It’s really cool.  Check this out.

Look at the computer in front of you.  How did it get there?  Did it just appear?  Of course not.  Someone had to have created it. I don’t think any scientist would argue against that.   Now, use that same common sense to think about how life began.  Did life just appear out of nowhere?  Of course not.  We’re all here, which means there had to be a designer. It’s really pretty simple.

a

Uh, Kirk, using your ‘common sense,’  isn’t the existence of God proof that someone designed him?

a

Kirk:  Good question Lisa!  That’s what’s so cool!  You see, God is eternal.  He transcends time.  So ‘who made God?’ is a question that doesn’t really make sense.  No one could have created him.

Lisa:  But I could just say that this computer wasn’t designed because it is eternal and transcends time.

Kirk:  First of all, that would be  a pretty silly thing to say.  We know computers didn’t just appear out of thin air.  Not to mention the fact that we could find out where your computer was made and visit the factory.

Lisa:  Let me get this straight.  Your 100% proof that God exists is that all things had to have a designer, but you also say that God exists and didn’t have a designer.  And your proof that God exists and didn’t have a designer is that someone must have designed everything?

–

Tune in for Part II, when Kirk explains flaws in the theory of evolution.

Related links here and here.

Too many passwords

I can’t keep track.  I need passwords to unlock my computers, to get into email, etc.  But… they make me change the passwords on a regular basis, and don’t let me repeat old ones.  I have a list of about 10 that I rotate.  However, if I guess wrong too often they lock me out.  I hate when I get locked out.  I need a better system.

Thomas Friedman

Every once in a while I read Thomas Friedman.  Usually I regret it.  But his Dec 1 column… wow!  He sounds delusional, even for him.  Check this out.  Here’s the first good quote:

If we become weak and enfeebled by economic decline and debt, as we slowly are, America may not be able to play its historic stabilizing role in the world.

A stabilizing role?  America?  Really?

A then there’s this:

The reason there are so many frustrated and angry people in the Arab-Muslim world [sic], lashing out first at their own governments and secondarily at us — and volunteering for “martyrdom” — is because of the context within which they live their lives. That was best summarized by the U.N.’s Arab Human Development reports as a context dominated by three deficits: a deficit of freedom, a deficit of education and a deficit of women’s empowerment. The reason India, with the world’s second-largest population of Muslims, has a thriving Muslim minority (albeit with grievances but with no prisoners in Guantánamo Bay) is because of the context of pluralism and democracy it has built at home.

Hm.  Maybe the reason India doesn’t have prisoners in Guantanamo is because we didn’t invade India and throw a bunch of their citizens, many of whom committed no crime, into that prison.  Besides, that’s a pretty weak argument.  Isn’t there also deficits of freedom, education and women’s empowerment in other countries, including countries that we support, but for some mysterious reason they don’t want to lash out at us?  Perhaps something else is going on… Hm…  It couldn’t be that we support Israel, even when they are committing war crimes (link).

As you might have guessed, I saved the best quote for last.  Friedman, on why we invaded Iraq

To me, the most important reason for the Iraq war was never W.M.D. It was to see if we could partner with Iraqis to help them build something that does not exist in the modern Arab world: a state, a context, where the constituent communities — Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds — write their own social contract for how to live together without an iron fist from above.

Yes, a good way to ‘partner’ with a country to help them write a ’social contract’ on ‘how to live together’ is to invade that country and kill 100,000 civilians.  And of course, it was a great plan for getting Shiites, Sunnies and Kurds to live in harmony.

But, awwww, isn’t Tom Friedman a nice guy?  He supported the invasion because he wanted everyone to live in peace.  At least, that’s what he says now.  But in 2003, he said this in an interview with Charlie Rose:

We needed to go over there basically, and take out a very big stick…  What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, and basically saying “which part of this sentence don’t you understand?  You don’t think, you know, we care about our open society? You think this bubble fantasy [terrorism bubble], we’re just going to let it grow? Well, suck on this, ok.” That Charlie, is what this war was about. We could have hit Saudi Arabia, it was part of that bubble. Could have hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could. That’s the real truth.

Obama

What is he, the first politician to keep campaign promises?  How disappointing.  I was one of the many people who voted for him who hoped he was just saying he’d send more troops to Afghanistan.

Anyway, why are we there?  Back in 2001, Bush said this:

On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against al-Qaida terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime.

Well, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.  Seriously.  The training camps were shut down.  The Taliban was weakened and kicked out of power.  That happened within the first year.  We should have left then.  What are we still doing there?

As tristero said:

What are those troops being sent to Afghanistan to do, exactly? It sounded to me like Obama was saying they would mostly be training the (corrupt) Karzai government’s troops and doing little fighting. But if mostly what they’re doing is teaching, then why are 30,000 more American soldiers needed in Afghanistan?

…

It appears that Obama’s is seeking not to eliminate a threat to the United States, let alone end the war, but rather merely to stop losing so badly. For 18 months.

Lindsay Beyerstein asks some good questions:

i) Isn’t it kind of crazy to think that the U.S. can transform the nation of Afghanistan into something we like better?

ii) … Why should we assume that the Afghans will ultimately be more grateful to the U.S. than resentful? It seems like we’re creating at least as many terrorists as we’re mollifying.

iii) Afghanistan is a huge and largely empty country. Even if we succeed beyond our wildest dreams, how can we be sure that Al Qaeda won’t set up training camps in remote locales anyway, regardless of what the central government thinks?

iv) Is this just whack-a-mole? NATO has driven al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, but they just relocated to Pakistan. If anything, that seems like a worse outcome. Pakistan is a politically unstable regime with nuclear weapons.

v) Isn’t our continued presence in Afghanistan a recruiting beacon for al Qaeda? …

Not to mention that this strategy of increasing troops in order to stabilize a country so that we can leave NEVER WORKS.  But leaders never get tired of trying it.

Palin

I agree with this:

Then there’s the Associated Press, putting 11 reporters on the task of “fact checking” her book.  I put the words in quotes because the CJR notes that much of this herculean feat is not checking facts, but quibbling with interpretations or sentimental boilerplate about the hearts and minds of Alaskans.  But the deeper question is how come Palin’s book gets a team of fact checkers, when books by other politicians get the standard gloss?

There seems to be an unhealthy obsession with tearing her down.  And really, guys, if you’ll just back off a little, she’ll do the job for you.  Have you seen that resignation speech?  How about we all act like she’s a former governor and vice presidential candidate, rather than Public Enemy #1?

and this:

Sarah Palin may well have been the worst candidate in presidential/vice presidential history. She was grossly unprepared to discuss national issues. She misrepresented her Alaska career in ways which set new world records.That said, all good pseudo-liberals know what to say when asked about Palin’s vile new book. Palin’s a mean girl, we know we must say, using oddly gender-tinged language even as we complain about Newsweek’s sexist new cover. After that, we feign indignation about Palin’s assaults on the “little people” in McCain’s campaign. In particular, we shed big tears over poor Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace. We boo-hoo about their mistreatment.

…

Let’s get clear: Salon lets people “fact-check” books they haven’t even seen. They trash the author for “bizarre passages” which they completely misconstrue.

…

As we’ve noted, Palin was a horrible candidate. In our view, she remains a person with very poor judgment about the nation’s problems. But inside the pseudo-liberal world, this week has brought a set of screeching complaints about all manner of pointless trivia—including complaints by “book reviewers” who haven’t seen the book they’re critiquing!

My complaints are:  the media give her more attention than is warranted (compare with other former vice presidential candidates, for example); and despite the fact that she gives the media plenty of valid things to criticize her about (her policy statements), the media hold her to a completely different standard.    Giving her too much attention and making a victim out of her is not going to help the progressive cause.

Sky Mall is funny.

On the plane this morning, I saw some great ads.  Examples:

• New!  Underwater Cell Phone System!  Have you ever wanted to make or receive a phone call underwater?*

*actual quote from the ad

• Portable Backyard Ice Rink
• Body Back Buddy
• The Neckpro Traction Device
• Personal infrared Sauna
• Head Spa Massager
• Attic Tent
• Standard Size Helmutt House

Current events

Did you know Sarah Palin has a book coming out and Carrie Prejean has a sex tape?  If you didn’t know that, you must not pay attention to mainstream left-leaning media.  For example, Prejean and Palin occupy significant space on Huffington Post everyday.  On Countdown with Keith Olbermann, not much else is discussed.  Take last Thursday’s show for example (transcript).  Here’s how he starts the show:

Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow?

…The House Democrat pushing an anti-abortion agenda, threatens the majority who aren‘t, threatens Senate Democrats—as Bart Stupak risks the lives of 44,000 Americans who die each year for want of insurance.

…

George W. Bush finally found something he may have done wrong: the bank bailout.

…

That president is surprisingly silent on Afghanistan.  This one insists none of the options his military has given him are satisfactory—demands a new set.Sarah Palin on “Oprah Winfrey,” and here come the tease sound bites—the Katie Couric interview, McCain‘s advisers told her it was a good interview and she should do more, she, of course, knew better.

…

“Worsts”:  Lou Dobbs says he was the victim of a vast conspiracy—by invisible aliens; a Colorado state senator compares the president to a 9/11 hijacker, and the senator hasn‘t even resigned yet.And the self destruction of Carrie Prejean, part eleventy billion.  The solo sex tape, she was 20 when she made it, says the guy she made it for.  And it was one of many tapes.

Take a look at his list of topics that we might talk about tomorrow.  Some are important, such as Afghanistan and health care reform.  Others are just tabloid stories.

If you go through the transcript, what you’ll see is that he did spend some time talking about each of these issues.  When he talked about health care, he made sure to keep reminding viewers that Palin and Prejean talk was coming up.  He was most excited about the possibility of more than one Prejean sex tape:

And, just as Carrie Prejean announced she regrets silencing herself during the latest interview with liberal bias media trying to silence her -  to say nothing of all of those sex tapes, plural.  OK, I made the last part up.

…

Carrie Prejean, back on autopilot, appearing in front of another camera, and self-circumscribing her First Amendment rights.

HA HA HA HA.  Get it?  Autopilot?  Camera?  HA HA HA.

And then he had long segments on Palin and Prejean.

Let’s recall that Carrie Prejean was in some beauty pageant and became a target of criticism because of her answer to a question about same sex marriage by judge Perez Hilton (yes, Perez Hilton, which should tell you how seriously to take the competition):

Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And, you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.

I don’t have the same opinion as she does, but what she said didn’t offend me in any way.

She’s 22 years old and is not some influential figure on the national scene.  There is no reason to discuss her, ever.  Yet, every night Olbermann mocks her and excites his viewer with bikini pictures and sex tape talk.  Huffington Post can’t get enough of her either.

I understand that making fun of the intelligence of attractive women, while showing them in a bikini or in short-shorts, might increase ratings and web site hits.  Nevertheless, I am disturbed that the most influential left-leaning news web sites and shows give these topics so much attention.

Not to mention that we are engaging in a cultural war when we attack a young, Christian woman on a personal level, just because we don’t agree with her opinion on same sex marriage.   While we sneer at people with less education and/or stronger religious views than us, we fail to make a case for a progressive agenda. As Bob Somerby put it:

We love the idea that we’re the smart ones—although it’s clear that we aren’t. We love the idea that we’re the moral ones—that the other tribe spills with racists. And in part because we love this war, we have been wholly unable, in the past fifty years, to build a case for health care reform. We’re the smart ones, we love to insist—and yet, our latest plan for health reform is melting down into a joke.

(We didn’t see the abortion fight coming! How strange, since we’re so smart!)

We live with a cosmically awful health system—a system characterized by needless deaths and comical levels of looting. But despite our brilliance and our moral grandeur, we can’t figure out how to make voters understand the need for large-scale reform. For fifty years, The Interests have spread their false messaging all around. (European health care is a disaster! They have to wait in lines!) Despite our own acknowledged brilliance, they have beaten us blue in the process.