The happiness expressed on the White House Lawn yesterday over the “triumph” of passing a health care bill in the House of Representatives was obscene and unseemly. Those joyous Republicans were obviously oblivious to the death and disruption their “Bill” would cause if it actually becomes Law. Many of us wonder, especially those like me whose life was literally saved by my health insurance, how these Republicans could be so insensitive to the needs of so many Americans? A Congressman from Alabama, whose State poverty rate ranks it 4th highest in the nation, has provided the explanation:
While some may call Brooks an “extremist’ I call him a Republican, because he epitomizes what the “mainstream” of the Republican Party has become. In the Republican politician’s desire to lower taxes for the wealthy; impose second class citizenship on Women; keep people of color in “their” places; and unfetter corporate greed; they have salved their consciences by making those who will suffer from their ill ministrations into people less deserving and less human.
Congressman Jason Chaffetz amplifies this Republican perspective especially beginning at 2:20 below.
Keith Olbermann provides a different perspective:
Resist!
ElephantTail 
May 5, 2017 at 10:41 am
Agreed. But it will be both painful and good, because it will expose Republicanism for what it truly is, and prove how far they are willing to go in service to their corporate masters, and the number of people harmed by this may be a small percent, but remember the “six degrees of separation” truth and the “150 acquaintance” rule: For every person harmed, 150 people know it, and the number of people that are impacted by that harm are, on average, about 4. Those multipliers are produce a movement.
Americans have the misfortune of being short-sighted, especially Republicans. They will find out the “freedom” they hoped for with conservative policies is all an illusion and a greater burden than they had before; that their taxes are not lessened but the services are so their financial burden is increased; in taking care of their parents, their siblings, and even their friends that fall on hard times due to corporate greed or medical emergency.
This may be what is necessary for a great awakening, Mike. And if the great awakening doesn’t happen: We might as well get this shit show over with, frankly, and move on to whatever violent revolution is next. I believe this is all just an acceleration of what Democrats were going to do if they had taken office, but by happening faster, the shock factor gives us a chance to reject this CMIC dominance and replace it with something more humane.
LikeLike
May 5, 2017 at 11:25 am
MM,
As I was preparing this piece I read a lot of stuff about the philosophy behind this bill. Groups like the Federalists are into citing John Locke as their expert on government, with the claim that it was Locke who influenced the writers of the Constitution. What it really is about is not philosohy, but a belief that wealth is a sign of worthiness and so those who need to be helped by government are unworthy. They use philosphy to give a patina of intellectual depth to a mindset of I’ve got mine……so fuck you who doesn’t.
LikeLike
May 5, 2017 at 3:46 pm
Locke did indeed influence the founding fathers, but they are doing two things: One, they cherry-pick from Locke what they want to hear and ignore his warnings about the evils of monopolies, trusts and cabals. And Two, Locke simply failed to consider some things that would have been science fiction to him; like Internet publishing, some of the technological advances, a future in which robots do absolutely everything better than humans from medicine to house cleaning to serving tables and garbage collection, for 25c an hour, the notion that a single company like Exxon could make the entire planet uninhabitable, or kill every living thing in the ocean.
In algorithmic science we’d say Locke’s philosophy is an algorithm that does not scale; it can work with 1700 and 1800 technological levels and population sizes and patterns of commerce, but fails beyond that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 6, 2017 at 8:35 am
MM,
……..And Locke and the Founding Fathers are long dead, having never seen the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution, which changed most of the way humans interact with their environment. Clinging to their philosophical pondering as anything but guideposts along the route of development of human knowledge is folly.
LikeLike
May 6, 2017 at 9:16 am
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 9, 2017 at 10:02 am
So limited government and individual liberty and the right to own property are bad things? That was basically what Locke was saying that individuals have a right to life, liberty and property and that government should be no more than what is necessary. I would not say anyone who isn’t rich isn’t worthy. But I would say that my muscular dystrophy is mine and that no man owes me anything. I will seek charity if I need it, charity given by individuals of their own free will and not forced by the coercive hand of government.
I see that Americans are extremely generous people and give money happily to causes and people they deem worthy. I see it on go fund me and other places. It is quite inspiring. A bit of confirmation bias if you will, individuals would take up the slack if government didn’t. Too bad they don’t deregulate insurance companies and medicine in general. I would gladly pay extra to go into an uninsured pool. Right now I am paying $1,500.00/month with a $6,500.00 out of pocket. Before Obama Care I was paying $700/month with a $2,000.00 out of pocket.
Most people on tax payer provided funds that I have met are able bodied who are scamming the system. Tax payer money which goes to people because they don’t work is more about welfare for government workers than it is about helping the poor. What would all those Ivy League educated “elites” do if they couldn’t find a public sector job?
LikeLike
May 9, 2017 at 10:25 am
“But I would say that my muscular dystrophy is mine and that no man owes me anything.”
“Most people on tax payer provided funds that I have met are able bodied who are scamming the system”
Bron,
When it comes to your personal wealth it seems that society has no right to ask your contribution for its upkeep. There are so many ways that your MD is subsidized by all of us that it would take a tome to relate, however, that is of no mind to you. You come by your self-centered attitude by believing the lies that those receiving care of any sort are frauds. This is how you de-humanize your fellow Americans in the service to your greed. It is so sad that you are so blind to the suffering of the world, but then I guess that is why you would call me a bleeding heart.
LikeLike
May 9, 2017 at 11:04 am
Bron: >> individuals have a right to life, liberty and property and that government should be no more than what is necessary.
Why? Should my food be no more than necessary to keep me alive? Should my entertainment be zero, because that is all that is necessary? Should my sexual activity be limited to zero, because that is all that is truly necessary? Should my income be limited to a subsistence wage, because THAT is all that is necessary?
The idea that government should be “no more than what is necessary” is bullshit, to start, and impossible to define, for seconds. My idea of what is necessary, and yours, obviously vary widely.
In my opinion, I am fine with government being no more than “necessary” if we can agree that part of what is “necessary” is to do as much as possible prevent anybody from making a profit (or gaining pleasure) by intentionally causing physical or financial harm to another person. So government should provide a communal health care with zero profit, communal insurance with the same for all kinds of insurance, including property and liability, and communal lawyers at cost for both prosecuting and defending parties. It should provide communal energy, water, food, shelter, sewage and garbage disposal, at cost. It should provide public transportation on roads, rails, and airways, at cost. And of course communal education, free college and trade schools.
Why not? Why should anybody’s life be hampered or impaired because somebody else wants to make a profit? Why shouldn’t all persons reach their potential, as they see fit, so they will pay the most taxes and contribute their maximum accomplishment to society? Isn’t that the pursuit of happiness?
LikeLike
May 9, 2017 at 5:10 pm
Mike:
Please let me know how my MD costs other people? I guess they may pay more for their insurance but how else? Curb cuts benefit more than just people in wheelchairs.
I would like to know.
LikeLike
May 9, 2017 at 5:15 pm
All that communal, I am my brothers keeper shit never works because scumbags milk the system. Face it communism is just plain evil. You can dress it up anyway you want but it is evil.
LikeLike
May 9, 2017 at 5:31 pm
Bron: On the contrary, it works just fine. There is no difference (including in milking the “system”) between what I propose and what most people do for their own families.
Did you care for your children when they were helpless for free, or did you demand they come up with some cash or starve, before they could speak? Does any family member help you because you need it, without pay? If one of your children became ill to the point of not being able to work, would keep them from homelessness by giving them a cot in a spare room? Or would you tell your kids, “Tough break, I hope you solve it.” ?
All this “communist” shit works just fine; we feed and educate our children for free, not because we must, there are plenty of ways out of it. We do it and don’t charge them, and it helps them get on their feet and be self-sufficient: But that end-point is not the criterion; we do it even if the ones we love are never going to be independent or on their own (like my autistic grandson) — While I draw breath and can think (and for a significant amount of time once I am done drawing breath), he will be provided for, even if his parents cannot do it, I will.
The difference is only one of your selfishness and inability to comprehend that by NOT caring for the kids that aren’t your blood, you create future problems for yourself and your descendants as those lost kids become thieves and killers out of their desperation, and then cost the rest of us far more in taxes, to keep them incarcerated, than it would have ever taken to just collectively raise them to reach their potential, whatever it may be.
LikeLike
May 10, 2017 at 10:40 am
Bron: Plus, the point isn’t whether my version “works” or doesn’t work, the point is that you have your view of what is “necessary” and I have my view, and in fact, although I wouldn’t go so far as to say everybody has a unique view, I think there are probably 24 or so camps on what is “necessary” for government to do.
You may want deregulation of farmers, ranchers and food producers, I do not: We ingest their product and it is too much of a commodity to be able to trace a disease or toxin or pesticide back to a specific producer, so without any ability to inspect their product at the point of production, we cannot prove who is responsible for crippling or killing an infant.
You may want to let lawsuits determine product liability, but if that is all the government will enforce, then for the products you really need the most (like food, water, shelter, medicine and medical care) the providers will simply demand you sign a blanket release form on all transactions with them before they ever sell you anything. Thus you cannot sue, and cannot eat, or get medical care, or rent or buy a home. They aren’t colluding or forming a monopoly (even Adam Smith thought government must have the power to prevent or break up monopolies), they are each acting in their own self-interest: They won’t sell something for $10 if they can be sued for $1M, and you won’t find anybody with money dumb enough to engage in it. Every company will become a “members only” company (like Sam’s Club or Costco), so they can include that blanket release form of any and all liability to you for any reason whatsoever in the membership agreement. They can’t do that now, it is against the law, but if unfettered — Of course they will, everybody will, and all ability to sue any company for anything will have been nullified.
While they are at it, they might as well force a pre-agreement that if anything does harm you, you agree to take $1 in order to never talk about it to anybody, lest you be sued for the damages your speech may cause. So then you are entitled to $1 for any pain or death, but if you complain in any way that the corporation hears of it, you will owe them damages of, say, $1M minimum. Don’t like it? Walk away. Grow your own food. Build your own house.
If you can live your life without ever buying any food, drink, or medicine, and without ever using anything that is potentially dangerous, flammable or poisonous, then good for you! I don’t live that way.
The simple fact is we need government protection for more than just physical harm, the logistics of modern life demand that we share resources and can be cornered by the rich and powerful to be exploited. We need a strong government to prevent that exploitation, because we are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and any person or business that impedes us and seeks to profit by holding any of those things hostage is evil and must be restrained.
LikeLike
May 11, 2017 at 9:19 am
Government can set standards based on science. Nothing wrong with that. Plenty of lawyers to bring class action lawsuits, nothing wrong with that either.
Most people are decent and would not knowingly hurt others. They would follow scientific recommendation.
Your view of people is very disheartening, you think we are all scumbags trying to fuck each other over. While people like me only think lefties want to fuck us over. At least you are non-partisan in your opinion.
LikeLike
May 11, 2017 at 1:07 pm
bron: I think about 3% of people are scumbags trying to fuck over the other 97%, like lions they only kill their own when their own are injured, because they know their own will retaliate with all the ruthlessness and violence they themselves are completely willing to use.
You are an idiot if your philosophy is based upon the 97% instead of that 3%, because the utter ruthlessness and violence of that 3% does not automatically imply stupidity: They can be smart, and when they are, they typically seek power and money that puts them at the top of government, of business, of organized crime, and even of so-called “charities”, because that is a great way to make money too, exploiting the 97%.
Most people are decent and would not knowingly hurt others. maybe 97% of people are that way. So what? the other 3% is enough to rule the world and destroy lives; and another 3% of births every day will grow up to be just like ’em. THOSE are the people we have to devise laws, law enforcement, jails, and government to subdue and limit the damage they can do to the 97%, because they are perfectly willing to enslave us and work us to death, they have no conscience or morals and all they understand is the threat of force.
The truth may well be disheartening, but at least if you know it you can protect yourself. Otherwise you stick your head in the sand and think everything will be alright, when in fact it will not be, and when the truth arrives in overwhelming force, your misery will be yours to own for not preparing yourself. And I don’t mean by owning some guns; the truth that will end us will not be deterred by a few dozen guns.
LikeLike