I think the main alternative, discussed in the last two pages of this thread, would be him being dead

I am glad that the healthcare system in Hawaii helped Rush while he was on vacation. It's nice to see Rush praise the healthcare in Hawaii. They have already enacted soe of the reforms that are in the current bill. They also have one of the most efficient health systems in the United States.

Limbaugh shows the deficits of empathy and "imagination" (in quotes because I don't mean it as it's normally meant) unfortunately common to most current pseudo-conservatives.

Yes, the system worked for him: a rich guy who needed and received emergency care. From that experience, one might think it's a stretch to extrapolate to a blanket defense of the entire U.S. health care system--never mind that his experience doesn't really speak to those who aren't wealthy, or have chronic conditions that require expensive maintenance treatments rather than a (hopefully) one-time emergency intervention.

This is what I meant when I wrote that "it's the best system in the world" for him: that a lot of other people are paying for the emergency care his bad habits helped necessitate is appropriate precisely *because* he's rich and successful. And he's such a blinkered bastard that I suspect it truly doesn't occur to him that others aren't so lucky or might not appreciate effectively subsidizing his excesses.

I don't wish him dead, but I do think he's a cruel and despicable human being. His whole shtick boils down to a fetish for the strong tormenting the weak: that's the common thread of his (truly stunning) racism, his celebration of torture at "Club Gitmo," the jokes about sexual harassment and "feminazis." I don't think he "runs Republicans" (and I doubt pacino really does either), but I do believe that his "entertaining" cruelty influences how millions of Americans think about their countrymen and the rest of the world.

http://nationalaffairs.com/publications ... ricas-edge

Interesting and well-written article with the following premise:

Our strategic situation is shaped by three inescapable realities. First is the inherent conflict between the creative destruction involved in free-market capitalism and the innate human propensity to avoid risk and change. Second is ever-increasing international competition. And third is the growing disparity in behavioral norms and social conditions between the upper and lower income strata of American society.

That's the Manzi piece, right? Ross Douthat got into that today.

He has some really good ideas, specifically the switch to a skills-based immigration model and the notion about de-linking "too big to fail" financial institutions. But his anti-government ideology gets in the way; IMO it's silly to assert that the Obama administration, which didn't nationalize the banks when it could have, wants to stick its nose in the economy for essentially ideological reasons. And he totally misreads the stimulus:

The first major initiative of the new president and Congress was the artfully labeled stimulus bill, which will have the federal government spend nearly $800 billion over the next ten years — less than 15% of it in fiscal year 2009. More than a short-term emergency measure, the stimulus represents a medium-term transformation of the character of federal spending — and government action — in America.

Only about 5% of the money appropriated is intended to fund things like roads and bridges. The legislation is instead dominated by outright social spending: increases in food-stamp benefits and unemployment benefits; various direct and special- purpose spending relabeled as tax credits for renewable-energy programs; increased funding for the Department of Health and Human Services; and increased school-based financial assistance, housing assistance, and other direct benefits. The objective effect of the bill is to shift the balance of U.S. government spending away from defense and public safety, and toward social-welfare programs. Because the amount of spending involved is so enormous, this will be a dramatic material shift — not a merely symbolic gesture.

This is misleading, and I'd say toxically wrong, in at least two respects: first, "increases in food stamp benefits and unemployment benefits" are explicitly temporary responses to an economic emergency rather than some kind of diabolical plot to revive Big Gummit. That's the "Recovery" part of the ARRA (along with the tax cuts, which had the least stimulative effect and were included in a misguided and failed bid for some Republican love). Even Werthless, who pretty much finds all government spending useless, basically thought this was an appropriate response to a crisis that impoverished millions.

The "Reinvestment" part, which Manzi also erroneously shrugs away, is designed as a down payment on human capital improvements, reorienting our educational and job training infrastructures toward a 21st century model. Since ultimately this is a big bet on dynamic capitalism--setting the conditions for economic growth rather than trying to define what it will comprise--Manzi gets it exactly wrong IMO.

The big thing he gets right, though, is that we need to restore socioeconomic mobility in this country. That means laser-like focus on education. I'm increasingly sympathetic to "deregulating" (his word) public schools as the flaws of the status quo become more apparent every year; I thought this could have been a killer issue for McCain in 2008 were he even slightly interested in education policy, and I have a hunch that the next successful Republican presidential contender will jump on this and run with it. (The big irony? Probably nobody in America is better positioned to do this than Jeb Bush, but he's likely radioactive unless he changes his name.)

Anyway, I agree it's a very worthwhile piece.

Dajafi,
Walk me through the "we subsidize Rush" argument because I'm not sure I follow it. To me, he benefits from having excellent health care because he's rich and can afford all the best. I think he's paying about what he should no?

The beef I have with him is that why is being rich a pre-condition of having appropriate healthcare (you could argue he does have the "Cadillac health care plan" which might be too good, but I think that's an argument for another day). But I'm not following us subsidizing him.

Maybe his half-a-billion dollar a year salary is tax-deductable?

jeff2sf wrote:Dajafi,
Walk me through the "we subsidize Rush" argument because I'm not sure I follow it. To me, he benefits from having excellent health care because he's rich and can afford all the best. I think he's paying about what he should no?

The beef I have with him is that why is being rich a pre-condition of having appropriate healthcare (you could argue he does have the "Cadillac health care plan" which might be too good, but I think that's an argument for another day). But I'm not following us subsidizing him.

docsmooth wrote:

If he has health insurance (given his wealth, it would almost certainly be foolish for him to; but that's another subject), a lot of people are paying dearly for the rescue care he needed mostly because of his lifetime of poor health habits.

which I guess means that "we" are subsidizing him in the same way that "we" subsidized me a few months back, in that he's not directly paying the full cost of (what's charged for) the services he received.

Frankly I'd rather take it as read that I wrongly characterized this than get into another angels-dancing-on-pin-heads argument. Which probably means that I'm fated to spend my afternoon doing just that, right?

dajafi wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Dajafi,
Walk me through the "we subsidize Rush" argument because I'm not sure I follow it. To me, he benefits from having excellent health care because he's rich and can afford all the best. I think he's paying about what he should no?

The beef I have with him is that why is being rich a pre-condition of having appropriate healthcare (you could argue he does have the "Cadillac health care plan" which might be too good, but I think that's an argument for another day). But I'm not following us subsidizing him.

docsmooth wrote:

If he has health insurance (given his wealth, it would almost certainly be foolish for him to; but that's another subject), a lot of people are paying dearly for the rescue care he needed mostly because of his lifetime of poor health habits.

which I guess means that "we" are subsidizing him in the same way that "we" subsidized me a few months back, in that he's not directly paying the full cost of (what's charged for) the services he received.

Frankly I'd rather take it as read that I wrongly characterized this than get into another angels-dancing-on-pin-heads argument. Which probably means that I'm fated to spend my afternoon doing just that, right?

Nah, too busy... if docsmooth insists on it, I'm not in the mood to argue. But getting into a whole the skinny/healthy subsidize the fat/unhealthy is not where we need to take this health care debate. I would imagine if he has health care insurance, he pays a ton for it and he's more than welcome to tap it when he's sick.

Gomes wrote:http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/keeping-americas-edge

Interesting and well-written article with the following premise:

Our strategic situation is shaped by three inescapable realities. First is the inherent conflict between the creative destruction involved in free-market capitalism and the innate human propensity to avoid risk and change. Second is ever-increasing international competition. And third is the growing disparity in behavioral norms and social conditions between the upper and lower income strata of American society.

I dunno. In the past few weeks, any article that comes with a Douthat recommendation has diminished relevance for me.

jeff2sf wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Dajafi,
Walk me through the "we subsidize Rush" argument because I'm not sure I follow it. To me, he benefits from having excellent health care because he's rich and can afford all the best. I think he's paying about what he should no?

docsmooth wrote:

If he has health insurance (given his wealth, it would almost certainly be foolish for him to; but that's another subject), a lot of people are paying dearly for the rescue care he needed mostly because of his lifetime of poor health habits.

which I guess means that "we" are subsidizing him in the same way that "we" subsidized me a few months back, in that he's not directly paying the full cost of (what's charged for) the services he received.

Frankly I'd rather take it as read that I wrongly characterized this than get into another angels-dancing-on-pin-heads argument. Which probably means that I'm fated to spend my afternoon doing just that, right?

Nah, too busy... if docsmooth insists on it, I'm not in the mood to argue. But getting into a whole the skinny/healthy subsidize the fat/unhealthy is not where we need to take this health care debate. I would imagine if he has health care insurance, he pays a ton for it and he's more than welcome to tap it when he's sick.

dajafi got the gist of my point, which is that anyone who has health insurance (employer-sponsored or 'retail') is 'subsidized' by others when they get big-price-tag care; their total premiums don't, and probably won't, equal or exceed the cost of the care they get for years & years, if ever.

In Rush's case, if he's paid his premiums he's as entitled as the next fat slob to the have the care his policy covers paid for. That doesn't mean that in his case the cost of his care wasn't subsidized' by others, almost all of whom are less well off than fatso.

But we don't even know if he has health insurance, remember, so it's really not much worth dwelling on

Fat drug addicts should pay higher premiums that fit abstainers.

More seriously--I'm a little sympathetic to the idea that a government healthcare program, in the name of reducing costs, might use sticks to get me to exercise more and eat better. But I'd prefer that to a corporation simply dropping me because I put on a little weight during the holidays.

dajafi wrote:
The big thing he gets right, though, is that we need to restore socioeconomic mobility in this country. That means laser-like focus on education. I'm increasingly sympathetic to "deregulating" (his word) public schools as the flaws of the status quo become more apparent every year; I thought this could have been a killer issue for McCain in 2008 were he even slightly interested in education policy, and I have a hunch that the next successful Republican presidential contender will jump on this and run with it. (The big irony? Probably nobody in America is better positioned to do this than Jeb Bush, but he's likely radioactive unless he changes his name.)

Anyway, I agree it's a very worthwhile piece.

I'm increasingly convinced that it wouldn't take much to dramatically improve the academic performance of the middle 2/3s of students. The top students I think end up doing well, and the bottom students have serious problems that are not easily solved. But those in between--really, there's no magic--higher expectations and a challenging curriculum, along with parental support of those expectations would go a long way to fixing a lot of what's wrong. I think too many parents think support means smoothing the path for their kids, and doing whatever they can to make their kids happy.

I imagine you people are subsidizing me to a certain extent. So what, honestly? Certain ailments can't be helped, and a first rate society ought to take care of its members.

Anyway, Rush told me it's the workout freaks that are causing all the problems, anyway, what with their broken bones and blisters and such.

TenuredVulture wrote:Fat drug addicts should pay higher premiums that fit abstainers.

More seriously--I'm a little sympathetic to the idea that a government healthcare program, in the name of reducing costs, might use sticks to get me to exercise more and eat better. But I'd prefer that to a corporation simply dropping me because I put on a little weight during the holidays.

Isn't the idea of charging someone way, way more because they need it more exactly what we're getting AWAY from in regards to healthcare?

pacino wrote:I imagine you people are subsidizing me to a certain extent. So what, honestly? Certain ailments can't be helped, and a first rate society ought to take care of its members.

Anyway, Rush told me it's the workout freaks that are causing all the problems, anyway, what with their broken bones and blisters and such.

Being a fax pill head, however, can be helped.

pacino wrote:I imagine you people are subsidizing me to a certain extent. So what, honestly?

In fact, most of us are subsidizing a very, very few of us.

And so what, indeed. For me the only question is a rather pedestrian one: will we acknowledge that the way we provide support is noxiously inefficient, and do ourselves a favor and reshape how we do it?

Gomes wrote:http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/keeping-americas-edge

Interesting and well-written article with the following premise:

Our strategic situation is shaped by three inescapable realities. First is the inherent conflict between the creative destruction involved in free-market capitalism and the innate human propensity to avoid risk and change. Second is ever-increasing international competition. And third is the growing disparity in behavioral norms and social conditions between the upper and lower income strata of American society.

This overlong essay really annoys me, for at least 3 reasons:

1) Manzi's language betrays a thinly veiled denigration of the social tensions inherent in the interplay of his "inescapable realities". Social "unease and opposition" to "enormous waves of innovation always sweeping over a free-market economy" (as if there was a free-market economy in which such waves were always sweeping that Manzi could point to) must be "overcome" - not "accommodated; "not ameliorated"; not even "bribed" - overcome, as in "vanquished", "squashed", "defeated".

In Manzi's peculiar world, "natural laws" of free-market economics precede inferior (probably corrupt) social/cultural mores. In his construction, capitalists are not found among the risk averse though in fact they can most often be counted among the most aggressively risk averse - when it comes to their parochial interests.

He imagines that the transformation of american agriculture was one merely of a shuffling of people from one employment category to another (away from farm work, toward industrial jobs) rather than the more fundamental transformation of concentration of ownership - in this case, of farm land. He sees as the only negative outcome of that transformation that "agriculture is no longer an industry that can provide employment for very many people."; that the only value in family farms was their "emotional resonance".

2) There are big chunks of odious nonsense:

As the lower classes in America experience these alarming regressions, wealthier and better-educated Americans have managed to re-create a great deal of the lifestyle of the old WASP ascendancy — if with different justifications for it. Political correctness serves the same basic function for this cohort that "good manners" did for an earlier elite; environmentalism increasingly stands in for the ethic of controlling impulses so as to live within limits; and an expensive, competitive school culture — from pre-K play groups up through graduate school — socializes the new elite for constructive competition among peers. These Americans have even re-created the old WASP aesthetic preference for the antique, authentic, and pseudo-utilitarian at the expense of vulgar displays of wealth. In many cases, they live in literally the same homes as the previous upper class.

Such behavior enables multi-generational success in a capitalist economy, and will serve the new elite well. But what remains to be seen is whether this new upper class will have the nerve, wit, and sense of purpose that led the old WASP elite to develop a social matrix that offered broadly shared prosperity to generations of Americans.

3) Manzi ties himself in knots overlooking the obvious, as when he pleads that "Evaluating the real change in economic circumstances of a typical American family over the past 30 years is extremely complicated. "

Try looking at changes in the concentration of ownership and control of property instead, Jim. The man's obsession with wages - as if we all came into the world yearning to be employed by someone - is downright bizarre. Pssst, Jim - try thinking of wages merely a variant of welfare checks, since in a post-industrial economy, the two are so often indistinguishable in effect. It may clarify your thinking. Or try to imagine your "waves of free-market innovation" without the gravitational pull of a complicit population 'moon' to stimulate their shoreward surge.

Despite an occasional aberrant, lucid observation ("The market often [undermines the very norms, and consumes the kind of social capital, it needs to operate]: relying on rules and behaviors made possible by traditional morality even as it undercuts it"), Manzi apparently believes only a newly energized sense of noblesse oblige can save our American bacon. Sadly, high-sounding nonsense verses like this

Strong families — and the commitments and habits they teach — are essential to both a market economy and a working democracy

are more his norm.

In short: this guy is a wanker.

Erick Erikson, moron in chief at Redstate, was on Colbert tonight. I only saw half of it. And it might have been a rerun.

I hate him so much.

Nah, it was new.

"So you're saying David Souter isn't a goat fucking child molestor?"