Thursday, February 25, 2010

A True Market Solution for Healthcare®

I don't regularly agree with E.D. Kain, but in this instance, his comments have passed disagreeable and gone straight to scattershot:

Is it so hard to imagine the Tea Partier who wants government to keep its hands off his Medicare, to be turned into an advocate of protectionist policies?
Well no. Not in the least. Putting aside the ease of imagining incoherent people raving incoherently, it's quite easy to imagine teabaggers taking a pro-"protectionism"* stance, in the prosaic way that a movement shot through with Obama-focused racial paranoia can be expected to harbor unfocused racial paranoia packaged as "protectionism" -- economic populism mixed with garden variety xenophobia, especially anti-Chinese and anti-Latino. Has E.D. Kain heard of Pat Buchanan? He's a pretty well-known figure of the American far right, and while not usually counted as a teabagger, the affinities are, well, not difficult to imagine: right wing populism is not really so variegated.

Later in the piece, Kain muses:
Federalism is quickly going out of style – and the next real national movement may be a unity of tea partiers and union members, social conservatives and progressives ...
Opinions differ, I suppose, but I say federalism fell from the style pages at the close of the US Civil War, which settled the question by way of ~600,000 corpses, establishing that leaving anything significant up to the states is an invitation to injustice, disaster, and collapse.

I suppose almost anything is almost possible, but I'm not sure teabaggers and social conservatives can long endure one another's presence; throw in progressives, and you have an omnidirectional hate-fest, or at best, a temporary unity of teabaggers and social conservatives to punch the hippies before resuming their mutual antipathy. Adding unions to the mix hardly clarifies the nature of this fearful(?) alliance.

The nub of that fear, I gather, is canvassed when Kain observes as follows:
I see no future political will to actually implement any true market solution for healthcare.
How gauche! I mean the way he declined to capitalize True Market Solution for Healthcare® and worse, left off the mandatory trailing registered trade mark sign, ®. I'd hate to be his legal counsel, let alone any of the brain cell factions responsible for the dissonant cognition. Will they ever see peace? If so, will it happen in approximately the same century as the True Market delivers its health care solutions?

He boldly dares to sketch what he means by that -- recall this is the True Market Solution for Healthcare® that a looming coalition of progressives, union members, teabaggers, and blastocyst-obsessed theocrats imperils:
I think the best model would probably be something like single payer plus health savings accounts. Make people of whatever income responsible for basic healthcare costs, but protect them from really damaging bills.
And that, dear readers -- government-administered, taxpayer-funded insurance coupled with social engineering by means of the tax code and a legal bottom below which the social safety net will let no rational actor drop -- is one conservative's idea of True Market Solution for Healthcare®

I don't think I can take a second.

* Tendentious, obfuscating scare-word akin to "terrorism," "socialism," and, in its day, "communism."

No comments: