Display:
Interesting, but somewhat concern-trollish.

What would happen to insurance workers? Probably unemployment. But in the wider picture, suddenly freeing up the many billions leeched from the economy by the insurance companies would make for a lot of new employment and business opportunities.

Saying 'We can't do that - it's going to cost Jobs™' is one of the standard right wing arguments - especially when the insurance corporations are already costing other people jobs, because of their culture and financial practices.

And yes, government managed health care would certainly better. It works in Europe, why can't it work in the US? It's not as if the US government isn't already managing a substantial national infrastructure, with varying degrees of success.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Jan 5th, 2010 at 01:03:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So you think Giordano is making a "right-wing" argument in favor of preserving the private insurance industry?

That's nothing like his actual argument.

by rootless2 on Tue Jan 5th, 2010 at 01:12:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know what Giordano's doing. I'm not sure he does either, except to make the point that he's more progressive than people who aren't totally sold on the bill - which seems like a silly position to take on legislation that's flawed at best.

As someone pointed out in the comments, it was pressure from the kill-the-bill lobby that moved the bill to the left, to the minimal amount that it was moved. So if he's saying we should all hail his legacy anti-corporate grumpiness and accept that he thought of it all first - or whatever his point is - I confess I'm struggling to see how that's relevant to the immediate health care issue in the US.

Suggesting that everyone should go all anarcho-syndicalist overnight is no less unrealistic as a counsel of perfection than suggesting the bill should be killed outright, surely.

And suggesting that a entirely parasitic industry can't be touched because it will cost jobs is a familiar right wing talking point. You'll have to ask him why he's using it, because I can't possibly explain it.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Jan 5th, 2010 at 01:36:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'll be back later - got to work - but I have to say that your misreading of Giordano gives me a lot of hope that similar misreadings of my comments are due to ideological blinders and not to my own lame writing style.
by rootless2 on Tue Jan 5th, 2010 at 01:42:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The argument I see from him is "the system is broken, but it is too broken to fix itself, therefore we are screwed." Waste of time.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Tue Jan 5th, 2010 at 04:23:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not at all. The argument is that the system is inherently broken, so partial reforms that actually help people are great and should not be discarded in the name of some supposedly "real" reform that will magically create an island of justice in the sea of exploitation. The idea that one can reform US health insurance as if the basic operation of the US economy did not favor corporate power is laughable.

Remember the context of the argument is that Moyers/Taibbi/Hamsher etc. are arguing that a health reform bill that improves lives of tens of millions should be discarded.

by rootless2 on Tue Jan 5th, 2010 at 04:32:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Giordano's points are quite simple. (1) The health bill actually will help a lot of poor and working class Americans - something that the critics don't seem to care about as part of their general disinterest in poverty and working people. (2) Capitalism is systematically unjust and arguments that the personality of government employees or corporate executives cause it to deviate from natural justice are, at best, shallow. (3) The theory that a defeat that will actually hurt tens of millions of the supposed constituents of the Democratic party will have positive political implications makes zero tactical sense and certainly does not lead to a stronger force for popular power. (4) The shallow and essentially right wing political analysis of the critics leads them to consider the rise and fall of the stock market as a indicator of something essential - as if the people who thought Pets.com was worth billions have the intellectual authority to decide the meaning the health bill. In fact, it's amazing how much faith the American "progressives" have for "the market".
by rootless2 on Tue Jan 5th, 2010 at 04:00:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd add that the problem of unemployment is a lot more mild than many who make that argument would have us believe.  It isn't like the insurance industry would disappear overnight with a public option.  You'd probably lose some jobs here and there, and eventually they might all be gone (decades down the road), but we're not talking about dumping millions on the labor market immediately.

Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Tue Jan 5th, 2010 at 05:34:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
" It isn't like the insurance industry would disappear overnight with a public option."

But what Giordano argues is:
"Would single-payer and public-options still be preferable? Yes, but with the proviso that the improvement would be at the margins, and they, too, would create new problems to solve. I have yet to see a single-payer health proposal, for example, that honestly admits that removing insurance corporations altogether would cause hundreds of thousands of Americans that work for them to become unemployed."

Single payer is not the same as public option.

by rootless2 on Tue Jan 5th, 2010 at 07:38:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series