![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Ponderings on America.
Jan. 20th, 2010 11:18 amIn that moody hour between the first coffee, and real breakfast, I mused upon normative, that is to mean value driven, thinking; and other a priori forms of reasoning, as effective in dealing with the the problems of complexity with which we are faced in our modern world.
Then I perused in an imaginative way what the great philosopher Sir Pelham Wodehouse might have said in some metaphor extended over a parable both of unsurpassable lightness and, paradoxically, depth.
But the annals tell us that on this matter The Great Man was silent, alas. Unless that is we can assume his gnomic "Oh, I don't know, y'know, don't y'know", put into the mouth of his avatar, Bertram Wilberforce Wooster, covers this and any subsequent eventuality (and likely more as yet undiscovered) we are left with silence.
So, it seems the Brahmins of Boston (and its surrounds) have spoken their piece.
Though there will be sound and fury as legislation is blocked thither and yon the net result will not be silence, but the blather of stasis. We could imagine this to be a victory for compromise....but there's something about compromising with innately corrupt practices, whether sanctioned by custom or law, which seems to taint all involved. In the UK this has been demonstrated by the MP's expenses scandal. In the US, paid political lobbying on behalf of various interest groups has compromised either House's ability to effect any change against the status quo, if the relevant interest groups are lined up against change of any kind....but in the bargaining and marketplace of votes and special pleaders, this system of favour and counter-favour will effectively leave other important issues subject to such leverage as to force stasis on the whole political system.
This can often be a good thing. Look at the Clinton years. As we're beginning to see, despite the political stasis of some of the period, a good percentage of the growth therein was 'real'. (At what cost to the environment, true: but starting conditions always change - the hell of dynamic systems, hey?)
Perhaps this result will give both parties a time to reflect. If you guys are going to have a health service, you might as well try to build the best one you can for the money. Sod all of the idiocy in this bill. Go for something good and noble and American.
I'd suggest an universal single-payer system. If you pay tax, you and your dependents get treated. Illegals who contribute get treated, they're adding to the common good. Opt outs with some (half value) tax breaks for those who want to go private, but still they should contribute something.
"This common good, Jeeves?" I raised a querying eyebrow.
"Not all that common, I think you'll find, sir. Nor often all that good." said Jeeves; a trifle too superciliously, I thought, even for him.
Then I perused in an imaginative way what the great philosopher Sir Pelham Wodehouse might have said in some metaphor extended over a parable both of unsurpassable lightness and, paradoxically, depth.
But the annals tell us that on this matter The Great Man was silent, alas. Unless that is we can assume his gnomic "Oh, I don't know, y'know, don't y'know", put into the mouth of his avatar, Bertram Wilberforce Wooster, covers this and any subsequent eventuality (and likely more as yet undiscovered) we are left with silence.
So, it seems the Brahmins of Boston (and its surrounds) have spoken their piece.
Though there will be sound and fury as legislation is blocked thither and yon the net result will not be silence, but the blather of stasis. We could imagine this to be a victory for compromise....but there's something about compromising with innately corrupt practices, whether sanctioned by custom or law, which seems to taint all involved. In the UK this has been demonstrated by the MP's expenses scandal. In the US, paid political lobbying on behalf of various interest groups has compromised either House's ability to effect any change against the status quo, if the relevant interest groups are lined up against change of any kind....but in the bargaining and marketplace of votes and special pleaders, this system of favour and counter-favour will effectively leave other important issues subject to such leverage as to force stasis on the whole political system.
This can often be a good thing. Look at the Clinton years. As we're beginning to see, despite the political stasis of some of the period, a good percentage of the growth therein was 'real'. (At what cost to the environment, true: but starting conditions always change - the hell of dynamic systems, hey?)
Perhaps this result will give both parties a time to reflect. If you guys are going to have a health service, you might as well try to build the best one you can for the money. Sod all of the idiocy in this bill. Go for something good and noble and American.
I'd suggest an universal single-payer system. If you pay tax, you and your dependents get treated. Illegals who contribute get treated, they're adding to the common good. Opt outs with some (half value) tax breaks for those who want to go private, but still they should contribute something.
"This common good, Jeeves?" I raised a querying eyebrow.
"Not all that common, I think you'll find, sir. Nor often all that good." said Jeeves; a trifle too superciliously, I thought, even for him.
