Dr. Socks briefly emerges from joyous Christmas preparations to snark on the state of our national discourse
Putting down my hot glue gun just long enough to quote Glenn Greenwald:
Of all the posts I wrote this year, the one that produced the most vociferious email backlash — easily — was this one from August, which examined substantial evidence showing that, contrary to Obama’s occasional public statements in support of a public option, the White House clearly intended from the start that the final health care reform bill would contain no such provision and was actively and privately participating in efforts to shape a final bill without it. From the start, assuaging the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries was a central preoccupation of the White House — hence the deal negotiated in strict secrecy with Pharma to ban bulk price negotiations and drug reimportation, a blatant violation of both Obama’s campaign positions on those issues and his promise to conduct all negotiations out in the open (on C-SPAN). Indeed, Democrats led the way yesterday in killing drug re-importation, which they endlessly claimed to support back when they couldn’t pass it. The administration wants not only to prevent industry money from funding an anti-health-care-reform campaign, but also wants to ensure that the Democratic Party — rather than the GOP – will continue to be the prime recipient of industry largesse.
As was painfully predictable all along, the final bill will not have any form of public option, nor will it include the wildly popular expansion of Medicare coverage. Obama supporters are eager to depict the White House as nothing more than a helpless victim in all of this — the President so deeply wanted a more progressive bill but was sadly thwarted in his noble efforts by those inhumane, corrupt Congressional “centrists.” Right. The evidence was overwhelming from the start that the White House was not only indifferent, but opposed, to the provisions most important to progressives. The administration is getting the bill which they, more or less, wanted from the start — the one that is a huge boon to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry.
Yet in the Orwellian world of Obama apologists, people who know all of this stuff and thus hold the President accountable are “low-information voters.” People who don’t know — or who, more likely, are furiously engaging in some kind of auto-mindfuck to keep themselves from knowing — are high-information Lady Bountifuls dispensing their wisdom to the peons.
(Also, according to this rubric, high-information voters “know” that the stimulus was a big deal. It’s just low-information types, like Paul Krugman, who think it was way too small. I love this game.)
31 Responses to “Dr. Socks briefly emerges from joyous Christmas preparations to snark on the state of our national discourse”
-
scott says:
The amount of effort devoted to not seeing the obvious on this issue over the last few weeks is really amazing. I appreciate that you point this out and that an A-list blogger dude like Greenwald calls BS on it too, because hearing guys like Klein and Yglesias tell you again and again that Obama is just an innocent bystander is really demoralizing.
December 16th, 2009 at 4:47 pm EST -
myiq2xu says:
Obama works in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform.
-
Sandra S. says:
Greenwald keeps saying “from the beginning”, but I wonder if he knows HOW true that is. How many of us called Obama as a corporate lackey fauxgressive from the beginnings of the primaries? See? This is what RESEARCH and VETTING does.
-
Donald W. Paulus says:
Seems like the Obama-bloggers are in a serious stage of denial. They can’t admit their errors regarding him; consequently, all their efforts go into maintaining their standard view of this very clever politician. Thus, said bloggers become dysfunctional and instead of light we get ever more amounts of heat.
-
janicen says:
Great link, Violet. Glenn says it perfectly…
Progressive opinion-makers, as always, signaled that they can and should be ignored (don’t worry about us — we’re announcing in advance that we’ll support whatever you feed us no matter how little it contains of what we want and will never exercise raw political power to get what we want; make sure those other people are happy but ignore us.)
-
propertius says:
This is my favorite quote from the Pandagon piece:
The people who are demoralized so much that they check out are probably not the same people writing or reading political blogs. They’re probably the least political of the bunch, the people who get no pleasure from the game and only want results.
How silly of me to be interested in “results” rather than the “game”!
-
lambert strether says:
Does this mean we won’t be getting ponies?
-
Jeff says:
I still think the insurance Mandate, in whatever form they can push it out the door, is Obama’s brass ring. He gets a country whose citizens have to pay to exist. It doesn’t matter how much the fine/penalty is (to start with), once that last piece of individual autonomy evaporates, you won’t be able to stand on the shoulder of a county road and die. When that Mandate is signed, we become property. The perfect Christmas present for the ego that has everything.
Obviously healthcare needs to be fixed. This bill, though, was junk when it started and gets worse by the minute. Let’s expand uninsured support past the ER, transform rather than just expand Medicare AND Medicaid,… REFORM was the cover; CONTROL was the goal, from the start.
And, IMHO, Dr. Socks IS A-list.
-
Nadai says:
Does this mean we won’t be getting ponies?
No, no, lambert, the ponies are coming. It’s just been more difficult than expected to squeeze them in through the 11th dimension space portal. Some of them got a little … bent. But you can tell they’re on the way from the copious mounds of pony shit that have made it through unscathed.
-
Violet Socks says:
How silly of me to be interested in “results” rather than the “game”!
Yep, it’s a game. Except when it’s personal spiritual empowerment, which is what the Obama movement was. Notice that Amanda is still justifying it based on how good it made people feel. Unfucking believable. In 2008 the grownups were trying to make serious political decisions about the future of this county, and the goddamn Obamabot kids turned into an episode of American Idol.
-
janicen says:
…and the goddamn Obamabot kids turned into an episode of American Idol.
Ohhhhh! I finally get it! It was that “Vote for the Worst” thing like when everybody was voting for Sanjaya!
-
myiq2xu says:
American False Idol
Fixt it for ya.
-
lambert strether says:
Idol™ … “And with the right medication…”
-
madamab says:
Glenn, Glenn, Glenn. Haven’t you understood by now that facts harsh the ObamaNation’s mellow?
Happy Holidays, Violet and all!
-
Violet Socks says:
If you’re a high-information voter like Amanda, be sure not to read this point-by-point from Firedoglake in response to Nate Silver. You don’t want to waste your beautiful mind on that stuff. Besides, your brain is already full of high-information magic pixie dust.
-
Toonces says:
Did Amanda intern under Maureen Dowd or something? I mean, that combination of being completely wrong, incoherent, and self-contradictory while dripping with condescension and promotion of her own supposed genius/status is a very um, distinct, writing style.
-
purplefinn says:
wikiHow has an appropriate How To of the day:
“How to Stop Being a Condescending Person”
http://www.wikihow.com/Stop-Be.....ing-Person
I think there are a few bloggers who might benefit from the tips.
-
alwaysfiredup says:
I still think the insurance Mandate, in whatever form they can push it out the door, is Obama’s brass ring. He gets a country whose citizens have to pay to exist.
I wouldn’t worry. Even if this thing passes, there will be a flurry of lawsuits protesting the constitutionality of the mandate. At least one of the lawsuits will reach the Supreme Court, and I fully expect them to shoot the mandate down. It will be sooooo satisfying to see that brass ring taken away.
-
monchichipox says:
Low information voter. Really that’s the funniest thing I’ve heard in a long, long time. If someone thinks I’m a dumbass I’d really prefer they just come out and say it.
-
FembotsForObama says:
Violet Socks says:
How silly of me to be interested in “results” rather than the “game”!
Yep, it’s a game. Except when it’s personal spiritual empowerment, which is what the Obama movement was. Notice that Amanda is still justifying it based on how good it made people feel. Unfucking believable. In 2008 the grownups were trying to make serious political decisions about the future of this county, and the goddamn Obamabot kids turned into an episode of American Idol.
******************Violet — I am in total agreement about the “personal spiritual empowerment” part. That’s what made me so ill, it felt like one long infomercial on the PTL network — feeling low about yourself, don’t like your racist feelings, then just vote Obama. All will be cured.
But, then again, Chicago is the center of New Ageism, just watch Oprah.
[Note: I believe some "New Ageism", so it made me sick to my stomach that people such as Deepak Chopra, who peddle spiritual enlightenment and personal responsibility, told us that Obama was "The One" and would save us from the ills of society. ... That voting for him was like a big collective conscious directive akin to The Secret, that in by voting for Obama, we are telling the universe we really really now desire real social justice and spiritual uplifting. They even said that Obama was more spirtitually evolved. (Who else was that message directed about -- the Shrub himself). Incidentally, the New Ageists are now telling us that having money is good, and that we shouldn't look to Obama for that empowerment, it's up to us to move along the collective good will that we channeled in our single act of voting for Obama. That it is up to US to be the change we see.]
Sometimes I just can’t believe the obvious manipulation and blatant hypocrisy.
BTW, love the glue gun, you can make so many pretty things that are in place for ever.
-
lambert strether says:
And speaking of the primaries, remember the Rules and Bylaws Commitee? Chaired by James Roosevelt, Tufts Health Care CEO?
-
m Andrea says:
Are we going to have a debtor’s prison for those who can’t afford insurance? I mean, I know people keep saying it’s unconstitutional and it would never stand, but why would a bunch of senators pass a law that they know right now is unconstitutional if they aren’t planning on actually enforcing it?
-
Patti says:
Some more “high-information” voters. A day late and a dollor short. Pisses me off.
-
Jeff says:
Even if this thing passes, there will be a flurry of lawsuits protesting the constitutionality of the mandate. At least one of the lawsuits will reach the Supreme Court, and I fully expect them to shoot the mandate down.
I don’t feel that confident about the courts, not after Kelo v. City of New London. Roberts has not been pushed to the Originalist wall yet, and Sotomayor’s rubber-law Empathy could end up anywhere.
Still, not the point. Writing a bill so that the second phase of legislating is in a friendly court, willfully handcrafting an unconstitutional law, is highest-order subversion of the Constitution they swore to uphold. I’ve called this a ‘Kamikazi Run’ before, and imo the target is dead-center.
If a bill gets passed with even a hint of “all citizens SHALL purchase…”, and with nothing else but doubletalk, that’s a bell that can’t be unrung. Even if it starts as a two dollar fine and a stern talking to, even if it is eventually ruled against in court, the concept that we need to be ‘Licensed and Insured’ to be a citizen will never go away. “Those Ninth and Tenth Amendments were a good idea way back then, but we need Modern solutions for Modern problems!”
I’m morbidly curious about what they would do with this mandate if they got it. Imagine a woman being rushed into a delivery room, only to be turned away because she didn’t have the BABY’S Proof of Insurance card! Hey, I wonder if we will get a break on our insurance if we show a Spay/Neuter Certificate, like our dogs.
Debtor’s prison would be the lightest touch. A government that regulates your right to BE controls when you WON’T BE. Thanks Harry, but that’s not exactly what I was hoping for in my stocking next Friday.
-
Violet Socks says:
Even if it starts as a two dollar fine and a stern talking to, even if it is eventually ruled against in court, the concept that we need to be ‘Licensed and Insured’ to be a citizen will never go away.
I think you’re exaggerating the change. All citizens are already required to have Social Security Numbers, so the requirement is already there that if you live in this country, you have to be registered.
I don’t know that the concept of paying the government for insurance is substantially different from taxation; and if we were to start paying the government for healthcare coverage, we’d be fine.
The problem is that the mandate will apparently mandate that we buy insurance from private corporations. It’s ironic that libertarians are viewing this as some kind of government takeover; in fact, it’s the triumph of corporatism.
-
cellocat says:
A little OT - I was visiting my folks, and found out that a neighbor’s son has a brain tumor, and the insurance company is trying to deny him coverage for various scans and such, saying that it is somehow a pre-existing condition. It continues to boggle my mind and enrage me that people can play with life and death and suffering like that. It continues to boggle my mind that we allow a for-profit health insurance situation to continue in this country, robbing people of their health, well-being, livelihoods, and lives. I can’t imagine being the person at that company who chose to deny the claim for a scan to determine which kind of brain tumor this guy has. The inhumanity, callousness, and denial are staggering in scope, and in the degree to which they’ve become normalized.
-
Kookaburra says:
Violet - the small-l libertarian position (not the corporate lackeys that run the Libertarian Party) that being forced to buy corporations products represents government takeover makes sense, because they don’t see much difference between the government and the corps that run it. I know - I used to be one of them.
-
RKMK says:
I don’t know that the concept of paying the government for insurance is substantially different from taxation; and if we were to start paying the government for healthcare coverage, we’d be fine.
I would like to point out that I, as someone who takes in about $44K a year here in Canada, pay about $750 a month in taxes off my paycheque. And that’s all my taxes (healthcare yes, but also everything else the government does - roads, schools, civil servants, EI, social security, etc). Because I’m paying off student loans and because I pay rent, I also get a nice cheque for $1K for my tax refund come spring. With that $750 a month (and I’d break down the healthcare portion to be at about $150, max) I get unlimited universal healthcare, for all doctors visits and hospital treatments. (Prescriptions drugs are subsidized by employer health plan, usually, but they’re saved the cost of the most expensive of possible treatments, so they’re not tempted to fire you to save themselves money.) If I am unemployed, I still get the doctor visits/hospital treatment. I walk in, flash my provincial health card, and walk out without seeing a bill - the clinic just sends a bill to OHIP with my health card number. (Co-pay? What’s a co-pay?) I choose my own doctor, and I can’t be denied necessary care, pre-existing condition or no pre-existing condition. I imagine those who make more money than I pay more in taxes - but even then, it’s hard to imagine that they pay the equivalent of $1000/month in health insurance alone. It’s certainly not perfect, but it’s a million times more civilized than both the current mess and the impending mess the Senate is putting together - you need single-payer. Insurance companies should only be relegated to drug and supplemental care coverage.
-
Jeff says:
“All citizens are already required to have Social Security Numbers, so the requirement is already there that if you live in this country, you have to be registered.”
Not quite yet. Still voluntary. Not for lack of trying, though. The dance to sever this last thread is illuminating, as is the pervasiveness of the myth of its requirement. A LOT of effort is going into convincing the people that officially they’re not still the boss.
This isn’t conspiracy theory fringe. In 1993 Congress and the CBO knew how fundamental this thread was, and they weren’t ready to swing the knife. Obama and this Congress understand it now, and are taking their shot. If there is one item left of this bill to hit the presidents desk, I’ll bet any amount you want this will be it. The prize is too great to pass up.
As I agree with many commenters to your wonderful posts that the unique key to ALL Women’s issues is total autonomy in their person, I feel passionate about its possible destruction.
(There are better cites - I’ve been trying to keep my links neutral.)
-
Violet Socks says:
SSNs aren’t required? Huh, I thought it had changed so that they are required now. I thought that happened around the time they started telling parents to register their newborns… Well, I’m glad.
-
Jeff says:
Its a fascinating little shuffle.
The parents MUST give their SSNs before they’re ALLOWED to RECEIVE one for their newborn, and this was first tried in target markets to see who would squawk. They ratcheted down the age (allowed? recommended? required for a dependent deduction?) in odd intervals. I’m very familiar with dodgey legalese, but this stuff is of a different order. The “A Citizen SHALL” fan-dance is pretty funny for the first few hundred times, then it gets more than a little creepy. Even the Patriot Act wouldn’t touch it.
As for a tax, a Universal Healthcare Tax or fully expanded Medicare would work equally well with or without a mandate, so wrapping one up in some kind of ‘everybody must chip in’ concession to the Right makes no sense. We do progressive taxation as well as could be expected and a few more points will be hard but not impossible. So why insist on a sign-up, with penalties?
Every tax, every regulation, every surcharge for things we’ll never use, all are connected to what we own or the recognition of our actions. You don’t have to pay to be born, die, marry, divorce, breathe or p**p. The licenses, certificates, etc. recognizing all these things are part of the social contract. Being required to pay a fee for the former breaks that contract.
Sorry for going on about this tiny point, but I truly think there is something really powerful there, and it would a potent tool when used by smart, compassionate Women.
