Sunday, June 19, 2011

Entry 69: I Know Politics Bore You...


[In honor of this being my 69th post]

So, I sat down to write this post, with about five different topics that I wanted to hit upon. Politics was the first thing on my list -- big mistake. Two hours into it, I realized I hadn’t even hit the second topic yet. The upshot is an almost entirely political entry, which generally, I try to avoid, but once in a while I guess it’s OK. Plus, it is a pretty brilliant commentary…

I had a series of job interviews this past week with a company in the States. They went well. From my perspective, in fact, they went very well. But, if you think about it, my perspective isn’t really too important. Their perspective is what matters, so we shall see.

Having a good job to go back to would really be a load off my mind. Joblessness is super high in the US right now and signs point to it remaining that way for some time. There just isn’t enough political will to reverse this trend of wide-scale underemployment. It’s an utter failure of leadership on both sides of the aisle, if you ask me.


I’m not quite cynical enough to think that the Reps are consciously and maliciously undermining a recovery, because it will help them in 2012, but let’s just say it certainly doesn’t behoove them to help the jobless right now. And people have a funny way of not doing things when it doesn’t behoove them to do so.

The Dems aren’t much use either. They are saying little about unemployment, instead focusing on the same things as the Reps – inflation and budget balancing. Important things, to be sure, but right now people need work, period. I don’t think I’m alone in saying that it would bring me more peace of mind to have a job than to know that all my “assets” are protected because inflation is low.

I’m not sure what Obama’s strategy is, here. Maybe he’s taking the left vote for granted and appealing to center, but I don’t think this is a good move. (I’m not even sure that there is a left and a center.) I think his entire platform should be jobs and healthcare (health care?). I’m convinced that these are winning issues for him.

The larger problem, of course, is the two-party system. It sucks. If you went to a bar and they only had Bud Lite and Miller Lite, you’d be thinking, “what type of shitty place is this?”, but when it comes to the leaders of our nation, we just shrug our shoulders, "that’s just the way it is, dude."

And the only really prospect right now of a legitimate third party is the Tea Party? Never mind. I recant the above paragraph. I’m cool with a two party system.


Actually, the Tea Party has some things going for it – enthusiasm, grass roots, and a mostly genuine desire from its members to “fix” America. Their activism is somewhat admirable. The problem with the Tea Party is that its members are absolutely wedded to their small-government-is-always-better/private-sector-is-always-better ideology. The Tea Baggers can’t see things objectively. Even when the facts are against them, they hold fast to their dogma.

This was epitomized by the Sarah Palin-Paul Revere farce (Palin is a de facto Tea Party bigwig). I mean, who really cares that she didn’t know the story of Paul Revere – a story that is probably heavy in lore, anyway? She could’ve easily just said, “Oops, I messed up”, and that would’ve been that, but she couldn’t accept that she was wrong. It didn’t compute. Instead of an admission, she tried to explain that 2 + 2 really does equal 5, and her followers literally tried to rewrite history, rather than admit she was wrong.

(By the way, you’ve probably seen this before, but if you haven’t, watch it. It’s funny.)



So, no, the Tea Party does not appeal to people, like me, who try to look at things objectively, and who try to be rational and scientific. For me, the Tea Bagging philosophy isn’t completely unfounded. Often the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, often government bureaucracies do impede progress, often unions do go to far, often regulations do stunt economic growth, but (and this is a rap-video-sized but) not always. It’s stupid (and dangerous) to think that we can turn everything over to the private sector, and the market will miraculously work everything out. What we should do instead is apply small-government/private-sector principles when it makes sense to apply them, when it benefits society to do so, and not apply them when it doesn’t. Am I wrong?

There are glaring examples right now of areas in which the government can probably do things better than the private sector, one of which is healthcare (the military and prisons are others). And there is nothing magical about why the government can probably do better, it’s perfectly logical, perfectly rational.

For one, the government can have the objective of maximizing coverage (subject to the given budget constraints, of course). A private corporation cannot have this objective, they must maximize profits. Coverage is important only in so far as it leads to profits. For private insurance companies, this means it is in their best interests to cover healthy people, and to not cover sick people, when of course sick people need coverage the most. For private health care providers, this means it is in their best interest to carry out the most-profitable treatments, not necessarily the best treatments. Even if people aren’t outright corrupt, these are not incentive systems that benefit society.

For two, the government can have a much larger pool of people. When it comes to insurance, more insured people in the same pool, generally means lower costs for comparable coverage. And, I’m not just waxing theoretically, here. This is backed up by evidence. Medicare (government run insurance for the elderly) costs are rising less fast than private insurance costs. Also, the US has a terrible cost-to-quality ratio when compared to many other nations with more public healthcare systems (just Google "healthcare US vs. world").

Watch this clip below. It’s sadly funny. The subject is Paul Ryan being asked about single-payer healthcare. He plays the typical politician role perfectly spitting out rehearsed lines ("fiscal house of cards") without addressing the real issue. (That US healthcare is broken in general, with private insurers leading the charge.)




To bring it all back around, this is why I’m antsy to get a job line up as soon as possible. If this clown is considered a major player in our economic recovery, then somebody had better cue The Presidents of the USA, because we’re not gonna make it.


No comments:

Post a Comment