She showed her colors as "Second Vice President" in 93-94 when she tried to sell her healthcare plan by contemptuously spitting out how she was going to "get rid of all those pencil-pushers in the insurance industry" (spitting out those "p"s as if she were saying "profit"), as if A) those employed pencil pushers weren't taxpaying Americans (and voters) and B) there wasn't the insane implication in there that if only the GOVERNMENT was running our health care...there wouldn't be paper pushers? They'd all be doctors and nurses?? Has she ever SEEN a government agency,, bureau, department?? (of course she had, and they were all full of nice unionized Democratic voters)
Absolutely insane. And contemptuous of the cognitive abilities of her fellow Americans. What a pig.
Trollificus: too tiny of a point to be a criticism of your post, but Hillary-care did not mean the government would be "in your health care" as much as they were assuming the role of insurer.
There are few more fucked up private industry sectors as health care insurance. Possibly the re-insurance market.
And to get completely off-base, why the hell is medical care of my teeth a whole separate insurance?
I'm just not sure even the government would be worse...
Free market means I have eight trash trucks that come through my hood on trash day. How many more until it just makes sense to make it a utility?
I get that you're proposing that health insurance just *might* be the one area of endeavor that could be improved by being in government hands. My wife has had a career in medical insurance and I'm not sure she would disagree. We spend hours puzzling over management decisions that make things worse, procedures that are perfectly counterintuitive for a company that actually valued efficiency and other foible. The best company she worked for was Principal Financial's insurance sector and they bailed about 10 years ago, so you may be right.
Then again, my Dad was in Civil Service, Logistics and Military Procurement-adjacent, and he would never agree. Almost drove him mad, but then, he was kind of a straight arrow,.
[Apologies for the scattered nature of this half-baked post when yours was disciplined...]
Without actually saying the word corruption, you probably hit the nail on the head.
It seems pro-capitalistic arguments often seem to magically wipe away the scourge of corruption yet focus on it almost singularly when arguing against government involvement.
Re=reading a book about fascism (Anatomy of Fascism-Paxton) that describes a process where early fascists had incredibly high social ideals for the time (women suffrage, social security, entering into no international treaties guaranteeing to come to some other country's aid, etc.) but the fact that most decisions of government are incredibly mundane so ripe for small-level corruption which ends up corrupting the movement from within...almost like an inherent bug in the system.
Without saying it directly, the argument seems to be if you don't have firm principles, your movement will end up being corrupted.
Kind of like the Mpls. protests last summer...if you don;t stay vigilant and self-police, the narrative WILL be coopted and all the goodwill you may have had starts smelling a lot like evil.
A guy much smarter than me once told me that one group thinks economic models are smart and people are stupid, the other group thinks economic models are stupid and people are smart.
She showed her colors as "Second Vice President" in 93-94 when she tried to sell her healthcare plan by contemptuously spitting out how she was going to "get rid of all those pencil-pushers in the insurance industry" (spitting out those "p"s as if she were saying "profit"), as if A) those employed pencil pushers weren't taxpaying Americans (and voters) and B) there wasn't the insane implication in there that if only the GOVERNMENT was running our health care...there wouldn't be paper pushers? They'd all be doctors and nurses?? Has she ever SEEN a government agency,, bureau, department?? (of course she had, and they were all full of nice unionized Democratic voters)
Absolutely insane. And contemptuous of the cognitive abilities of her fellow Americans. What a pig.
Trollificus: too tiny of a point to be a criticism of your post, but Hillary-care did not mean the government would be "in your health care" as much as they were assuming the role of insurer.
There are few more fucked up private industry sectors as health care insurance. Possibly the re-insurance market.
And to get completely off-base, why the hell is medical care of my teeth a whole separate insurance?
I'm just not sure even the government would be worse...
Free market means I have eight trash trucks that come through my hood on trash day. How many more until it just makes sense to make it a utility?
Mea culpa, I really am asking as I do not know.
I get that you're proposing that health insurance just *might* be the one area of endeavor that could be improved by being in government hands. My wife has had a career in medical insurance and I'm not sure she would disagree. We spend hours puzzling over management decisions that make things worse, procedures that are perfectly counterintuitive for a company that actually valued efficiency and other foible. The best company she worked for was Principal Financial's insurance sector and they bailed about 10 years ago, so you may be right.
Then again, my Dad was in Civil Service, Logistics and Military Procurement-adjacent, and he would never agree. Almost drove him mad, but then, he was kind of a straight arrow,.
[Apologies for the scattered nature of this half-baked post when yours was disciplined...]
Without actually saying the word corruption, you probably hit the nail on the head.
It seems pro-capitalistic arguments often seem to magically wipe away the scourge of corruption yet focus on it almost singularly when arguing against government involvement.
Re=reading a book about fascism (Anatomy of Fascism-Paxton) that describes a process where early fascists had incredibly high social ideals for the time (women suffrage, social security, entering into no international treaties guaranteeing to come to some other country's aid, etc.) but the fact that most decisions of government are incredibly mundane so ripe for small-level corruption which ends up corrupting the movement from within...almost like an inherent bug in the system.
Without saying it directly, the argument seems to be if you don't have firm principles, your movement will end up being corrupted.
Kind of like the Mpls. protests last summer...if you don;t stay vigilant and self-police, the narrative WILL be coopted and all the goodwill you may have had starts smelling a lot like evil.
Very well reasoned.
A guy much smarter than me once told me that one group thinks economic models are smart and people are stupid, the other group thinks economic models are stupid and people are smart.
What if they are both stupid?