SOCIALIZED MEDICINE & SOCIAL PRETENSE

I have touched previously on the role of piety in the zombie-like consistency with which “progressives� adhere to the cause of socialized medicine, but it occurs to me that social pretense is also an important factor.

When dealing with heretics, “progressive” verbiage can be distilled down to the following sentiment: “Oh dear, how gauche!” Consider the following from Matthew Holt’s response to Peter Chowka’s review of SiCKO:

And then into my email box the other day plopped this review from someone called Peter Chowka … I have no idea who you are, Mr Chowka …

Note how important it is for Holt to point out that he doesn’t ”know who” Chowka is (almost certainly a lie, BTW) and to insinuate that the latter’s e-mail constitutes a kind of social blunder.

Another single-payer advocate whose health care positions are apparently contingent on whom he “knows� is Joe Paduda. In a THCB comment regarding Stuart Browning, he says:

Not knowing Mr. Browning, I’m somewhat confused as to his point …

Odd that he must “knowâ€? Browning in order to comprehend his point, but then Joe is often confused. For these people, deviation from the party line on socialized medicine is not only morally suspect, it’s a kind of faux pas.

Advocacy of free market reform is just not the done thing.

Comments 2

  1. Sid Schwab wrote:

    Actually, the “reality based community” designation is based on a quote from one of Bush’s press people lo these eons ago; that person derided the concept, saying “we make our own reality.” And look where it’s gotten us.

    Meanwhile, the Ezra Klein link you provided seems to put the lie to your reverse-telescope focus. Whatever the tone of your brief quote, “distasteful” seems to be off-point as a characterization, in that he goes on in detail to address the issue. If single-payer is BS, it seems that such narrow quote-mining isn’t necessary to prove it. And, as I’ve said on my blog, I think “single payer” is erroneously conflated with “socialized” or government-run medicine. My view of it is a system that streamlines the payment of health care costs by eliminating the myriad insurers who divert gazillions of dollars from providing care into the pockets of executives, investors, and add to cost by their enormous (compareded to Medicare) overheads. There’s no reason why “single payer” means an end to the free enterprise format of the providers of health care; only of the unnecessary siphoning of money by the insurance industry which adds little if any value to the system. That’s what I see, anyhow. And when push comes to shove, it’s doubtful either political party will have either the gumption or numbers to anything very significant about it anyway.

    Posted 27 Jul 2007 at 5:56 pm
  2. Catron wrote:

    If single-payer is BS, it seems that such narrow quote-mining isn’t necessary to prove it.

    The post is less about “single-payer” than the social pretension that permeates the “progressiveâ€? blogosphere. Klein’s blog positively reeks of it.

    I think “single payer� is erroneously conflated with “socialized� or government-run medicine.

    “Single-payer,� “universal health care,� etc. are euphemisms. If our masters in Washington control the money, it’s government-run health care. And the more control they get the more they will meddle with (all aspects of) the delivery system. My favorite trope on this comes from Panda Bear, MD, whom I quote here.

    It’s doubtful either political party will have either the gumption or numbers to anything very significant about it anyway.

    You’re probably right. On health care, the Democrats and Republicans are dumb and dumber (not necessarily in that order).

    Posted 27 Jul 2007 at 7:04 pm

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *