Mayberry Machiavelli
Mayberry Machiavelli's JournalThis is what we are dealing with:
Sirius/XM has a medical channel, and there is a show devoted to insurance and coverage issues.
Some lady called in who's a single mom, the show's topic seemed to be about the ramifications of the health care legislation.
She is currently uninsured, her employer doesn't offer health insurance.
She was concerned about being able to afford insurance as a single working mom. The host of the show explained that he was really glad that she called in because this is one area where the new law is really helpful to her, because depending on her level of income, she would receive varying levels of government subsidy to her insurance premium, including full subsidy if she was below 30K or whatever (she never did say what she made).
Then she turns around and says, "well this is where I have a problem with it, I'm really proud of being able to take care of my family all my life without going on welfare/public assistance" and I smacked my forehead so hard it could probably be heard 3 counties away. I'm thinking "you'd rather get a 100 thousand dollar bill for a bad car accident or cancer in your family that would completely bankrupt you, but you're complaining that you can't afford insurance, and you HAVE NO INSURANCE NOW so such an event WOULD bankrupt you WTF, and lemme guess, it's all Obammy's fault right", and the host sort of made this point, but in a much nicer and more pleasant way than I did, LOL.
I wonder what news network she watches on TV all the time?
Highly recommended article by Dr. Atul Gawande on the political fight over PACA.
Dr. Gawande describes the nature of the health care problem and why it is easier to demagogue against solutions than to provide simple solutions that are easy to sell. He also describes the main types of arguments used against PACA in a broader historical context of how similar lines of argument have been employed to resist other social changes in the past:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/06/something-wicked-this-way-comes.html
...
Two decades ago, the economist Albert O. Hirschman published a historical study of the opposition to basic social advances; “the rhetoric of intransigence,” as he put it. He examined the structure of arguments—in the eighteenth century, against expansions of basic rights, such as freedom of speech, thought, and religion; in the nineteenth century, against widening the range of citizens who could vote and participate in power; and, in the twentieth century, against government-assured minimal levels of education, economic well-being, and security. In each instance, the reforms aimed to address deep, pressing, and complex societal problems—wicked problems, as we might call them. The reforms pursued straightforward goals but required inherently complicated, difficult-to-explain means of implementation. And, in each instance, Hirschman observed, reactionary argument took three basic forms: perversity, futility, and jeopardy.
...
The rhetoric of intransigence favors extreme predictions, which are seldom borne out. Troubles do arise, but the reforms evolve, as they must. Adjustments are made. And when people are determined to succeed, progress generally happens. The reality of trying to solve a wicked problem is that action of any kind presents risks and uncertainties. Yet so does inaction. All that leaders can do is weigh the possibilities as best they can and find a way forward.
They must want to make the effort, however. That’s a key factor. The major social advances of the past three centuries have required widening our sphere of moral inclusion. During the nineteenth century, for instance, most American leaders believed in a right to vote—but not in extending it to women and black people. Likewise, most American leaders, regardless of their politics, believe people’s health-care needs should be met; they’ve sought to insure that soldiers, the elderly, the disabled, and children, not to mention themselves, have access to good care. But many draw their circle of concern narrowly; they continue to resist the idea that people without adequate insurance are anything like these deserving others.
...
(more at link)
The article is short, basically a blog post, but very concise. I personally think Gawande is the best writer on social, ethical and political issues surrounding medicine right now. If you are unfamiliar with him, I'd recommend you check you his books and articles. He is a gifted writer and his style is not dry at all, it's informative but also entertaining reading.
Many of his articles are compiled online at the New Yorker's website, and a lot of these have been incorporated as chapters in his books:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/bios/atul_gawande/search?contributorName=Atul%20Gawande
Who is running Romney's campaign? Is there a name?
Is there a Schmidt, Axelrod/Plouffe, Rove, McAuliffe, Atwater etc.?
Romney will avoid saying or doing much of anything of note before November if he can.
Even though he likes to pander, he won't pander with a big appointment like VP, it'll be someone predictable like Portman or Pawlenty.
If he can get away with mumbling platitudes but not committing to any position, such as on immigration issues, Arizona law/DREAM act etc., he will do so.
If he can avoid tough in depth interviews, he will do so and only go to events with supporters.
If polling shows him "in range" like within a few percentage points behind, he'll be fine with that.
To make up the difference and get over the hump, he'll rely on:
-A billion dollars worth of GOP SuperPAC negative ads saturating media in OH, FL, VA, NC, CO, NV etc.
-Voter suppression campaigns like Rick Scott's in as many GOP governed states as can be carried out.
The results of the voter purge/intimidation campaigns won't be seen until election night, but the media saturation ones WILL be seen in polling going up until the election.
It's only if the SuperPAC ad blitz doesn't show a sufficient effect getting him into range in OH and VA near election time that we might see him take any kind of chance or go out on a limb, but not under any other circumstances, I think.
Boehner has announced intentions to repeat last year's debt limit hostage situation.
This is completely predictable since this worked very well for the GOP in severely weakening President Obama last summer, they don't care how bad the GOP Congress comes off as long as it hurts Obama. And it did, very badly, last time. I think Obama's severely weakened state at the end of that last year led directly to Rick Perry getting into the race.
President Obama had better have a better plan to deal with this than last year, getting strung along for weeks and then giving everything away at the last moment. If he plays it the same, he will lose by 5 percent popular vote and a lot of electoral votes in November, in my opinion, lame as Mitt Romney may be as a candidate.
I honestly don't get the whole thing with politicians and Twitter, especially right wingers.
GOPers seem to be SO into Twitter.
You'd think that politicians would be the last people who'd want to be tweeting their every latest thought in real time and no real opportunity to "edit" the thought or decide it was best not expressed.
I see many disadvantages, but I fail to see the advantage of using Twitter for them.
Trayvon Martin case: Do we even know if Zimmerman and the crime scene were photographed?
That would seem beyond obvious as a requirement but I don't remember even hearing definitively that these things were done.
Were witness interviews recorded and transcribed?
Were all these normal and simple things done or not done? Do we know at all?
Here's a site with some really remarkable satirical propaganda art for the GOP Primary Candidates:
http://www.basvanoerle.com/?p=392I've been very impressed by these, I think they are amazing and I hope the rest of you enjoy them as much as I do.
Is the HBO film "Game Change" entirely about McCain and Palin? Because the book sure wasn't.
The book was around 70-75% Democratic Primary, if not more.
The preliminary media discussion and trailers seem to show only McCain and Palin.
If Mitt were in "Back to the Future" he'd be staring at a Nov. ballot with his name and Rubio's...
... and watching his name at the top of the ballot suddenly get blurry and indistinct.
Profile Information
Member since: Sat Jan 17, 2004, 01:32 PMNumber of posts: 21,096
