While I completely agree with Krugman on this post regarding the hypocrisy of today's Republicans, to a great degree I think Republican intransigence is largely a demon of liberal design.
Or as our forefathers once said: "he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword"
For if you do not fully understand the whole paradox that is our health care debate, I think Keith Hennesy has done a marvelous job explaining it here with a post titled "Four Sided Box".
In a nutshell:
1. You want to enact only the health insurance reforms.
2. You need an individual mandate to make the health insurance reforms work.
3. You need to subsidize lots of people if you implement an individual mandate.
4. You need to cut spending or increase taxes if you want your subsidies not to increase the budget deficit.
You’re right back where you started.
To enact the health insurance reforms, you need a complete bill that includes an individual mandate, subsidies, and politically painful offsets. You can drop the employer mandate, and you certainly don’t need an obscene $1+ trillion of subsidies. My point is simply that you can’t hive off the insurance mandates and make the policy work.
But the one thing the Democrats were not able to do was make those politically unpopular offsets. Indeed they were only able to increase spending.
... FWIW, at least those who are worried about how we name roses will get to say that America's health care system is a little more socialist than privatefor the very first time. Now we are all saved. ;-)
As I have said on numerous occasions, I do not think one can change the underlying structure of our society and the more I see stuff like this the more firm in this conviction I become. We can of course destroy some of the diversity/complexity that got us into this mess in the first place BUT... We have all seen what that did in the world wars of the twentieth century.
Which brings me back to why I posted Krugman, the penultimate public advocate for Keynesianism as a solution for this whole debt cycle mess. For since I think one cannot change the underlying structure of society (except by destroying some of its complexity/diversity) but at the same time, nothing has fundamentally changed in a debt cycle except for our perception of reality, what then is Keynes saying when he says "keep the party going by shifting the debt from the private to the public sector"?
Of course he too is basically saying the same thing as I- namely the underlying structure of society is immutable. But if he is saying this, how can he also be a liberal since wasn't reducing income/wealth inequality the core principle of defining oneself as liberal? Propping up the whole debt thing might keep the party going, but it certainly does not fix inequality? What gives?
I might remind you that inequality is a form of complexity/diversity. Further we know the best way to destroy complexity/diversity (inequality) is to simply eliminate it.
Well, did you know Keynes was a eugenicist?
... As I said before, the more I read, the more the dots are starting to line up.
Are the Republicans really the cruel ones in this issue? Are the Democrats?
Of course it depends on "whose viewpoint' is looking at the issues? What are their "kin boundaries", etc..? What do they want their world to look like?
Totalitarianism is built into the very fabric of the universe.
Interest Rates And Savings
1 week ago