So the House of Representatives passed a health-care bill over the weekend.
I'm taking a long, hard look at the bill, and will report back.
But I say that anyone who is uncritically cheering, refusing to acknowledge the notable harms of the proposals, is -- in the Painester's book -- a total fuckhead.
And anyone who is uncritically mourning, refusing to acknowledge the notable boons of the proposals, is -- in the Painester's book -- a total fuckhead.
It remains my considered view that the divergent political movements in the country (you know, the communist pinkos and the reactionary nazis) have largely good intentions*, but differing values and priorities. If these were easy fixes without difficult, difficult tradeoffs, we would have solved the big problems long ago. So we have to muddle through with our big fights, cleaning up as we go along.
I know some disagree. You disagreers are far more cynical than me, and are -- in the Painester's book -- total fuckheads.
But I still love you.
Anyway, doing this bill, doing a different bill, or doing nothing, will all have painful, crappy consequences. I hope that the mix and the tradeoffs in the statute [and I am certain we'll get one] are limited in their damage and bountiful in their reward.
*self-interested, self-promoting hucksters who are selling their incendiary or divisive "politics" have legions of followers -- it's great to hang out with people who play to your passions (redheaded licentious,publicly-masturbating women with big bank accounts and loose financial safeguards are, oh, I don't know, a decent example) -- but are not, imho, the movements. Not at all.
And I recognize that every politician is arguably a self-interested, self- promoting huckster. Or maybe that isn't even arguable. I'm trying to distinguish between entertainers who have chosen "politics" as the preferred story backdrop for their performances (Limbaugh, Beck)from people involved in process and policy. A difficult distinction.