« Ruminations – 21jan2010 (updated) | Main | Tea Party Patriots Under Cover of Night »

22 January 2010


Michael Anderson

As a progressive who was annoyed with Madam "Choakly," I'm warming to the idea that we need to stop feeding the Washington D.C. beast. That being said, if we send them only 22 cents, can we then try to figure out how to make health care expenditures in California more efficient, meaning that those who can't afford health insurance are not relegated to costly ERs for treatment? We have to get the cost down, but I don't really care all that much if it happens east of 117 degrees longitude. I'm a regional progressive...()-:

George Rebane

Michael, as a 'regional progressive' (great label) does it make sense to you if we first try some obvious approaches to lowering healthcare costs? Such approaches as -
* allow all health insurance companies sell in California;
* revise medical malpractice laws in one of the legion of suggested ways so as to reduce frivolous lawsuits and, therefore, the cost of practicing medicine in our state;
* permit more levels of healthcare providers to establish independent practices in California.

Michael Anderson

I thought I had posted something here yesterday in reply, but it seems to have disappeared. Oh well, I will try again.

But first, before I discuss the health care bill, I just wanted to let you know that after having read your post regarding "The Moral Economy of Scale in Murder" I now see that for you the word progressive is a pejorative term. It would be nice if you could help those of who enjoy debating with you to come up with a term that does not automatically put us in the category of "people who would like to starve George Rebane in the gulag or kill him with Zyklon gas." I think the debate will go better having settled on agreeable terminology.

Back to the health care debate, I think it is regrettable that the Democrats did not allow more debate on opening up the states to more insurance competition, tort reform, or creative healthcare solutions. I am not a registered Democrat and I think the sausage-making that went on was pretty reprehensible, just like you.

That being said, these are details when looking at the big picture. For me there are two things that healthcare reform should take care of: runaway cost and universal access. The latter seems to be handled somewhat in the bill passed by the House and Senate, and the former maybe not so much.

Unfortunately, the US Congress is intrinsically unable to handle Big Policy Debates, and instead likes to muddle around in the details to make it appear as if they are getting things done. This is largely due to members on both sides of the aisle being beholden to their corporate sponsors who feed them bills laden with earmarks, pork, and other unpleasant trappings of our corrupt federal oligarchy/plutocracy.

George Rebane

Michael, please tell me what 'progressive' means to you, and how you differentiate yourself from that group. Tell me what you and those who think like you would like to be called. I have no desire to use misleading or inflammatory "terminology", that spoils productive debate.

I never put you into any category. The only ones who would like to eradicate me are those who see me as an unproductive drag on society or someone who opposes our progress toward collective totalitarianism. Should I fear danger also from other sources?

Michael Anderson


You should not fear danger from ANY sources in Nevada County, as far as I can tell. I know that Anna can be disconcerting, and others from the "progressive" community as well, myself included. But we are trying to work it out. I think these blogs are a tremendous resource in that regard.

I like Teddy Roosevelt a lot, but as in all political persons, there were things he did that I find revolting and counterproductive. I think the word "progressive" these days means something much different than it did 100 years ago. I mean, for goodness sakes, back then they were still feeling people's heads and comparing brain cavities.

So, that being said, thanks for hosting this blog, and we'll see you down the road. Will you be at the jobs forum tomorrow afternoon at the GV Vets building? If so, I will make sure to introduce myself. Politely and respectfully, of course...(-:

Dixon Cruickshank

"The only ones who would like to eradicate me are those who see me as an unproductive drag on society or someone who opposes our progress toward collective totalitarianism. "

LOL I can see how the Union commenters and the like see you as " An Arbuckle on the Ass of Progress"


Is collectivism (collectivists) the term we are looking for? Collectivism is the term I use to describe those who believe that the community at large holds more rights than the individuals that make up the community. Collectivists believe that it is the right/purpose of government to provide justice/equality at the expense individual rights (property, life, etc).

George Rebane

1 : a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control
2 : emphasis on the collective rather than individual action or identity

This formal definition by direct extension subsumes individual rights to that of the collective. The latter, of course, are defined by an elite group that has the (only) guns.

The comments to this entry are closed.