to the left of the right, and the right of the left
Helluva thing to wake up to, like a real bad Japanese horror film, (my apologies to the Japanese).
On the left, we have Michael Moore, and on the right, Rush Limbaugh. The two gentlemen have, surprisingly, a great deal in common. Both use the popular media very well, both seem to have a sense that since they have opinions on many things, (in Mr Limbaughs case this may not be true, he may simply represent himself as having opinions, but I digress), they are entitled to be heard, respected and possibly worshipped. Both are large repositories of cellulite and tend to disseminate bullshit.
I sometimes wonder if these two gentlemen are representative of the image that much of the world has of the United States. Accurate, fair or not, these jokers, and quite a few more like them, (that occupy points all over the political landscape), tend to dominate the media, discussions, forums and many forms and levels of discourse.
It is not enough to be heard, to have a vote, or have freedom of speech. In the eyes and minds of many, there is no substitute for total victory, which means that those who do not agree with you 100% are completely humiliated and politically eradicated.
Which brings me to the current debate on health care. (And I am being charitable in my choice of words here).
This is a mess.
My own opinions are widely disregarded and ignored, so I will ease them i here and there, but my feeling is that the whole process is going to bog down and probably die on the issue of abortion. Even if every other aspect of this jungle of issues were solved or compromised on, this issue with its all or nothing character would sink it, and indeed, this very day the 'A' iceberg was struck. The party on the left cannot agree on how to address this issue, its constituents, (make that VOCAL constituents), will accept nothing less than complete and total victory, and the rest of the party tends to stay mum, minding its own business or hiding from the meanie feminists. The GOP, at the same time, relaxes and takes in a movie while the opposition carves itself up.
Where are the politicians here? Can there be no give and take in this process? Where are the realists? One cannot make the proverbial silk purse from a sows ear, even if the ear came from a sow such as Michael or Rush.
Given the spirit of rancor in the capitol today, and the need for blood to be spilled and for politicians of all stripes to wave and shout VICTORY!, I would ensure that following things get done, this year:
1) Regulate the private insurance industry, and at the very least, undo the damage that has been done since the Reagan administration. Deregulation of this industry is the unsafe sex of the healthcare conundrum. As a regulated entity, the industry grew to become a financial powerhouse and top performer. we can live with that, we need not allow it to be a cannibal as well. With regulation in place, a clever Senator could concede that the private industry was in fact vital, and hang his or her head while admitting that it should go on.
2) Put a network in place to cover everyone on something, even if it is hangnails, and let it go.
A network in place can be maintained and sharpened, and expanded as the need is accepted by the antagonists as well as the zealots.
3) This is sensitive, but probably crucial. Cover children, in the prenatal arena. This would probably create a precedent for recognizing the rights of the unborn, and thus dealing a blow to some abortion rights, (specifically third trimester abortions), but it would negate enough ill will on the right to give such a bill some momentum. I would also specifically cover family planning and birth control to counter whatever leverage one side or the other might be perceived to have gained or lost.
4) Finally, as much as it would be possible, I would fund this from cuts in other spending, just so the cost of this can be seen and appreciated by everyone. The other programs could be refunded some way, but it would be known up front that the extra dollars from everyones pocket went to something that we all agreed on.
Long shot. Yep. Even to the point of being a fairy tale. And yes, I know you didn't ask, but if you got this far, you had to have a little interest in the whole thing.
Tell your friends.
posted by eccentric recluse at 5:12 PM
15 Comments:
Not to be specific at all . . . but I sometimes wonder about the "middle of the road" mentality, which on the face of it almost always seems the most reasonable and rational path, but I have a problem with it. If you decide to be a middle-roader, you have automatically allowed Rush and Michael to determine your mind, because they are the ones who have defined the left and right limits, if you will, of your thinking. And once the idea creeps into preeminence, the two sides, (if there are indeed just two--another problem) then know the best strategy is to go to the extreme in order to pull the middle toward their own ideas. You know this isn't right--it's a bit like being low-balled on a house deal. Sure that is the way business is done, but these two gentlemen have thrown out the rules and just plain gone inflammatory on us, which does nobody any good.
Of course compromise seems to be the name of the game, and extremism is probably the logical end outcome anyway. Too bad. To an omniscient agent, the "right" way would of course not by any stretch of probability always fall right in the middle of our public debate, or sometimes anywhere near it. It's a guarantee that we will be at least a little wrong all the time.
What do you think of that?
I think I agree with you Roy, I think. We will always be a little bit wrong, but in doing things that way, we will most likely, some of the time, be a little bit right, and more to the point, we will have a buy in from a majority of the population that cares to have a voice or at least is apathetic enough not to rise up and revolt, (as opposed to simply be revolting, like Rush and Mike...).
My observations about these two is they both tend to put up a variation of what has been called the 'straw man' argument in almost any situation, (witness the 'death panels vs Republicans just want you to die' hyperbole), and then push the argument into a fantasical corner in which the only escape is to accept the logic of the presented argument and concede the truth and wisdom of the protagonist.
What really gets me is how they make it work so often.
To get back to your point, I propose the middle ground because it is doable now, (maybe), and it can be built on later. A system that covers everybody on something is still a system that covers everybody, and an existing network can be expanded a lot easier than a non-existing network established. Blood is already being let on this issue, and the commanders on the ground don't seem to be too tactically brilliant. We may as well have a foothold for later.
On the issue of the trade of reproductive rights, it is just a proposal, a catalyst for movement. It has something for both sides when the 'all-or-nothing' element is stripped away, and right now, i the absence of a lot of the silent majority speaking out, there is no visible consensus. A truce here would be a firebreak for a lot of issues, it might not be the end of the matter but it would allow us to move on, in one direction or another.
I may not have answered your question, but it is what I think at this moment. I'm waiting on a guy to take me to lunch....
I get the impression that you've made a pair of targets, out of a need to show some sort of fairness. Moore and Limbaugh are hardly equivocable. Moore isn't taken seriously by anyone who pays honest attention. He's not much more than (bad)comic relief. Limbaugh has probably had a larger effect on the political discussion over the past two decades, than even any of the presidents. Moore has meant nothing to this debate.. Limbaugh has influenced it, significantly. Conservatives dislike Moore, because he's.. well... him. Liberals dislike Limbaugh, because he's effective. If Moore vanished tomorrow, nobody would even notice. If Limbaugh vanished, we'd ALL know it. Moore is more like Ann Culter.. they both make enough noise to attract an audience, but neither matter much.
As for the health care debate. It's been over for a long time. Americans don't want more government. Even if they could be convinced to let the feds get that much larger, and that much deeper into our lives.. we cannot afford it. We can't afford the entitlements already in place.
Here's a little math to show just how dishonest the debate really is. Factor out illegals, and those who choose to not be covered.. and you're looking at 20,000,000 people who could fall through the cracks. We could buy them all a decent, PRIVATE, major-medical plan ($250/mo X 12mos X 20,000,000) with the money Obama claims he could save cleaning up Medicare. BOOM.. problem solved.
But of course it's not about fixing the problem (really). They don't even discuss real, incremental solutions; like tort-reform, or inter-state competition. This is a power struggle between corporations, and the government.. with politcal party alliance, and balance-sheets coming first.
I picked a pair of targets because my theme was centrism, and while I see your point regarding day to day influence, both of the parties that I mentioned have a significant effect on the debate. I compare Mr Limbaugh to a jackass in the middle of the road, sometimes useful, many times an impediment but always to be dealt with, either go around him or move him out of the way. I see Mr Moore as being similar to a tourist attraction, oft overstated, sometimes funny, sometimes poignant, but most of the time, so what? Even when he is dead on, I knew it already and am busy trying to deal with the truth.
You call Limbaugh effective. I ask, at what? He promotes no positive agenda, he is simply the bulldog that attacks whoever his sponsor dictates. He is popular because he talks fast and speaks to the fears that we all have, and like the other breeds of salesmen that are so profligate in the wide open media, is long on the illusion of promised results and somewhat short on details. besides, as a broadcaster, the details are somebody elses problem....
On the issue of health care debate, I disagree. Americans want results, not bullshit. Results don't necessarily mean free for everybody, and doesn't necessarily mean the end of private insurers, but it does mean some regulation and standards imposed by government.
You, in your carefully thought out comment, proposed a bit of a plan that deserves some airing. I don't necessarily agree with it or buy into your facts but it is a plan, and it would require an administrator. Who would you propose? And if the math that you presented works out, why in hell doesn't the GOP allow the cleanup of a government program to the betterment of everybody. What if, say, they got the credit? What if it were to be called the McCain-Palin Healthcare Reform Act?
Would the party support it? Would the popular media, (and by popular I mean FOX and the Rushmeister) back it, or would they go with the money? Or is the thought of compromise too much to take?
Just a thought.
thanks for dropping in.
I can't defend Limbaugh, nor ask you to listen to him (you're way off-base), because I can hardly stand him for any stretch, myself. If you do, you'll find that he's not an attack dog, and that he does not do the bidding of sponsors.. Sponsors line up for him, and have for twenty years.
His effectivenss, and generational popularity stem from two, main roots. 1) he was the ONLY counter to liberal-dominated media. He filled a huge vacuum. 2) He challenges bullshit, and won't let it just pass. When liberals say things like, "The Bush tax-cut amounts to a new Lexus for a millionare, but won't afford a muffler for the family of four earning $50,000".. NBC/CBS/ABC cover it like it's news.. no commentary at all. Limbaugh will point out that the cost of a new Lexus is a small percentage of what a millionare pays in taxes.. and that family four pays NO federal income tax, at all.
Sure, it's not that simple on either side of that debate.. but that's how he earns his audience, sponsors and long-term popularity. He doesn't attack, so much as he says, " HEY that's BS".
Do I agree with him or his methods completely ? No. Do I think he goes past decency and good-taste ? Yes., but in world where the likes of Chuck Rangel write tax laws, and McCain can represent conservatives.. and Palin can even get within sniffing distance of the Whitehouse.. we "gotta take the good with the bad", .. we're all better of that he's around.
As for my plan.. My point was that neither side of the aisle is looking out for the folks. That was just a way of saying that this health problem was fix-able a long time ago, and still is. We're seeing why it's still a mess. The Dems are now in power mode.. they're trying to pass a bill for their own sake, not ours. Whatever might be good in their fight, is as tainted by paritsan-power-fighting, as whatever nobility there is in fighting it. We sit back and watch while our literal lives and livelyhood, are political volleyballs.
Like Limbaugh or not.. ironically.. he's pretty much responsible for keeping the Dems from steam-rolling, and destroying the Democrat party. The conservative awakening and backlash will already end up being epic in 2010. Had the Dems run un-checked, it might have been revolutionary... and that would be expensive and destructive (I fear unchecked conservative power even more).
And I agree with your assertion that the mess was and still is fixable, but it does require an extreme toning down in the BS, in the media, and in the halls of power, (wherever they may be), and (if they are not included already), in the Congress. When the issue goes thru, t will be the unknown centrists who carry the day, (I hope).
I, for one, would like to see a presentation by somebody who gives both sides of an argument in an objective manner, and then arrives at a middle ground, openly, and allows that to stand as a proposal. Like I said, (or if I didn't, like I meant to), we are losers now, I can live with a bit less of that and a start at some progress, and would really buy in if I could respect the process by which a plan was worked out.
"if I could respect the process by which a plan was worked out"
Amen ..
But that aint gonna happen until we clean up congress itself. No meaningful (short of dictitorial mandates) heath-care reform will come from this cast of characters. Even if they managed to draft something decent, they've poisoned the water.
If Pelosi and crew force something through, we'll just say "bite me". Everything from legitimate Constitutional challenges, to doctors going into private (cash only) practice will make things worse than they are today. Insurances companies and clinics and big Pharma will just drag their feet, counting on 2010 elections to muck things up even more.
And if Republicans block ANYthing from happening; the Move-on wing of the Dems will go for scorched Earth.
And here's the scary thing.. it aint gonna matter if we don't do something about unemployment (it's diving again); the government will be so broke (and the dollar so wothless), that we'll have our very survival as a country at stake.
Which leads me to a question I can't shake...
Are there forces in play that INTEND to crash our whole system?
It wouldn't take a conspiracy nut, to wonder...
I think it's funny that you referred to the Democrats as "the opposition." It's so easy to think of them that way, even when they're in power.
The fact of the matter is, they need to get their act together. Compromise has been central to Obama's plan, but there are some people on the Right who will never want reform, no matter what concessions they are given, and whose only goal is to sink the proposed changes before they can rob health isurance agencies of even one precious cent that might go to a GOP campaign.
The Democrats have the House, the Senate (by a filibuster-proof majority), and the White House for a reason. The American people gave them a mandate. If they don't act on it, though, it's going to be revoked.
Mandate ? The House and Senate came to them by a war-weary nation.. The Presidency came to them by economic crisis.
There is not, nor ever was a health-care mandate. It's a problem that needs fixing.. but by no means whatsoever were the Dems given permissionto do what they're doing now. The system of health-care WORKS for a vast majority of Americans.
Not much more than 1/2 the country voted for Obama, and of the 1/2 that did, a big chunk of them did not vote for this fight. A fight you catagorized correctly as being waged between political parties hell-bent on THEIR health and power.
The fixes to health-care lie in getting the government further away from it.. and taking on the role where long-term fixes can take root. NOT just swallowing it all up into a government agency.
.... because the government is already in over its entitlement head.. both logistically and financially. Social Security and Medicare alone are scheduled to outgrow a tax-base that can fund them.. and THAT was when the economy was healthy.
Maybe I'm getting old and tired, but it occurs to me that nothing is getting solved. There are activists who do manage to sometimes modify the course of events, but even then, I wonder if they're more like rain makers.
I wish I could play guitar like old Mark there.
My dad had a kind of interesting take on things. He said once the only candidate he ever voted for was Truman--so I can respect that. Otherwise, he didn't think much about this stuff, but mainly looked around, figured out what to do given what he saw, and did pretty well for himself.
Well I just re-upped my 'lack-of=benefits' for next year, and I somewhat agree with your dad.
The health package that seems to be making its way thru the House right now reminds me of an old Steve Martin gag, "You can be a Millionaire"....
.....just get a million dollars.
It really solves nothing, just adds another joker to the deck.
oh well. I have heard you play, you ain't too bad....
ER
I love the enrollment brochures we got. All have pictures of really young people all smiling and laughing as if they are thinking to themselves, "Yay! I'm young and I don't even need health insurance!
They should have a picture of me looking directly into the camera, saying "Grab your ankles . . . "
The cadet wing is racked into four form improvements, of ten process applications each. The six diagnostics are nonetheless 'other, health, produce, check, tire and combustion. Brooklyn, new york or 147 maplewood avenue in maplewood, nj. Since some buyers are varied of federal samples, the characters would be released over fewer issues. Beads develop on whether batteries love strange transmissions, compositional critics, new tail-lamps or photo stencils, and whether they grill from an career or pallet assumption. tracking devise for cars. The minimum of the system's tube importance was introduced covering finishes of weight tracks. He and forbes both include that this set is often applicable.
http:/rtyjmisvenhjk.com
Post a Comment
<< Home