But he gave us universal healthcare

October 23, 2012

In my quixotic and lonely attempts to convert my Obamabotic friends, loved ones, and companions, as well as Facebook types, I’ve come across the retort that “well, Obama did ____”, where the blank is filled with some pleasant thing that the great deceiver has done for us. Sometimes its Federal student loan relief, or the GM bailout, but most often its the signature achievement of Obama’s first four years: Romneycare … I mean, Obamacare.

Now, there is plenty of left criticism of this dog’s breakfast that is Obama’s health insurance (not health care) plan. The plan is a give away to big insurance and big pharma; it does nothing to control costs; it doesn’t provide universal coverage; it needlessly costs lives while its provisions slowly kick in; it preserves the grotesque amount of administrative overhead characteristic of the American way of medicine. But don’t just take my word for it.

In fact, I’d go farther: the Obama program is really a vehicle for looting. In an act of government sponsored primitive accumulation, it forces masses of people into a mandated market. Without cost controls, and with the duopoly’s longtime abandonment of any concept of antitrust, the market will quickly implode, as price pressures will quickly overwhelm any but the richest person’s ability to afford health care. In the meantime, though, the usual suspects – FIRE – will cash out. Then it’s onto privatized education, and then water, and then … the genius of Wall Street will tell.

But more immediately, I’m struck by the peasant-like attitude of these progressive Obama apologists. Obama gave us universal health care. He gifted it to us. He was brave, generous, and kind – and we were passive, and grateful. This is president as Czar, and progressive as peasant. No doubt, Czar Barack’s shortcomings can be attributed not to his own venality, but to the machinations of the evil people around him. If only the Czar could see the real unvarnished truth, then he’d set us free.  Or, perhaps, he’d give us an $8 / hour minimum wage.  One can only vote, and dream, and wait.

Advertisements

Third party, or no party?

October 20, 2012

Ok, so we’ve got this terrible thing on our back, this duopoly. And, we’ve spit out the citizen’s duty, lesser of evils Kool Aid.  Does that mean don’t vote, or vote Green (or red, perhaps)?  The two legacy parties are in complete agreement on the need for austerity – a need that is fictional. So either legacy party vote endorses the same suicidal position.  But a nonvote does not stop anyone from winning, and a protest vote (Green, etc.) has the same net effect as a nonvote.  Any vote is symbolic. Choose a or b or c or nothing at all – the results are guaranteed to be the same.  The vote is a signal, a sign – something lik e a bumper sticker. Will anyone notice it? Will anyone care? Should anyone care?

Before I get carried away, there may actually be a vote that could matter.  Should Obama win, his party in Congress will certainly carry water for him, even as he moves to further fuedalize our state and society.  Meanwhile, the Repugs will do their part in the fight for plutocracy since that’s what Repugs are about.  So Obama wins, and we’re screwed.  But if Mittens wins, he may just get some pushback from the Dems, particularly progressives and even the  Congressional Black Caucus (which has been neutered by hope and change.)  Perhaps just maybe there’s a chance of no grand bargain. Perhaps our only glimmer of hope at least in the near future is a Romney victory.  So – and bear with me here – the best move for a progressive in a swing state would be to get out and vote – for Romney!

Just sayin.  Also, I’m glad I don’t live in a swing state.