More on the Economist's endorsement of the healthcare bill

The Economist reluctantly endorsed voting for the healthcare reform bill. This garnered dozens of comments from Tea Party types. I said this in response to both (which you also see at the Economist's website):

For readers of the Economist who aren't fluent in American, maybe I can help with some of the terminology used in many of these comments:

Socialism: any regulation of any business in any way.

You see, as a child Ayn Rand was traumatized by the Soviets confiscating her parents' estate. This made her unable to distinguish between regulation and confiscation, and she passed this philosophical virus on to generations of American right wingers.

Liberal/Conservative: in America we use these terms somewhat differently. Basically, conservatives long to restore an America that never was, while liberals long to transform it into a nation that never will be. So they're dueling dreamers.

Conservatives are happy to destroy the environment as long as they can keep driving their three ton SUVs. Liberals are happy to destroy American unskilled laborers' livelihoods in order to make America the safety valve for Mexico's overpopulation crisis (from 20 million people in 1940 to over 100 million in 2000). So neither is either.

And since Conservatism (capital C) has become a religion, they'll regard the Economist's apply of reason to the messy healthcare bill as heresy. Because in a religion, study is not analytical but rather worshipful. And, as you've experienced with Europe's radicalized Muslims, you are not allowed to disagree, with or without reasons--only to obey.

And when you read nutcases here declaring that the Democratic legislators in Congress should be tried for treason by a military tribunal--you'll see that they've left the basic tenets of constitutional democracy far, far behind.

But since our schools teach children facts but not what to do with them, they aren't aware that they've abandoned our nation's basic values--because they didn't understand those values in the first place.

For my part, as a centrist American who's reasonably educated, I think the Economist has assessed our healthcare bill spot on.

Now I'm waiting to see whether our Supreme Court--whose hard-right near-majority lied about their objectivity during their Senate approval hearings--will summarily overturn the universal health insurance mandate in the bill, thus kneecapping it.

Tagging the libertarians

There were a lot of libertarian comments on Dana Milbanks' latest Washington Post blog entry, about the unwisdom of Republicans pinning their next campaign on repealing healthcare reform. It garnered hundreds of very snarky comments (right wingers appear to be in an unusually bad mood today), so I entered the following (and got a little snarky myself):


So our social safety net--now amped up slightly by this healthcare reform act--is an American tragedy, huh?

Meaning that since our safety net (even with the latest bill passing) is the skimpiest of any developed country..and since, apparently, the skimpier the safety net the more virile and successful a country is, ours must be doing the best, and a place like Germany or Sweden the worst.

Hmmm. I bet a lot of Germans and Swedes (including conservative ones) would find that pretty laughable.

But if you really believe that, I encourage you to move to a truly free enterprise capitalist country with no emasculating social safety net, where you can let your overwhelming manliness take wings and soar above the crowd.

I suggest the Philippines. I've been there a couple of times. Pure capitalism--and it's got a lot of American influence. So you all should feel right at home.

Go, now. Shoo!




Still here? You should have the courage of your convictions.

But as long as you insist on sticking around, explain me this:

How are you all such geniuses that you know better about the healthcare reform bill than The Economist?

You know, The Economist--the world's leading periodical devoted to free enterprise capitalism since 1843?

This week's issue endorsed voting for this healthcare reform act. Honestly, it's not their ideal way to do it. But all things considered, at this time, in this place, they recommended voting for it.

What do your towering intellects have to say to the editors of The Economist?

I can't wait.

Words to remember

The head of Congress' House Republicans stated, for the record, that the healthcare reform bill "will ruin our economy."

I also saw him call passage of the bill "Armageddon" in another interview.

So if our economy isn't ruined by the bill, may I assume that Representative Boehner will admit that the Republican Party was profoundly wrong on this critical issue, and then switch to the Democratic Party?

If the economy is ruined, I'll be glad to pledge to renounce the Democratic Party and become a Republican....