1. What an absolutely ridiculous observation. Basically you are saying that the Democrats know what they are doing and we stupid people should get out of the way. Listen to the people.

   — Duke Clarke · Jan 20, 09:45 AM · #

   ---

2. I am indeed questioning voters’ political intelligence, but I am not saying the Democrats know what they are doing. And it’s not necessarily the voters’ fault. Everyone involved, Congressman and voter alike, is feeling the pain of a system that is unable to deal with the issues we need to confront. Voters can act rationally and self-interestedly — like when in California they vote themselves goodies from the public treasury and reject any attempt to pay for them — and act completely against the common good. MA is only the beginning of that sort of thing becoming the norm.

   — David Sessions · Jan 20, 09:55 AM · #

   ---

3. If Democrats had tried to be even remotely bipartisan, maybe this wouldn’t have happened. Just because you have a super majority doesn’t mean you can do whatever the hell you want. When you won’t even compromise to get Olympia Snowe’s vote, you have a problem.

   Democrats needed this reality check. This is the beauty of our system, not its flaw.

   — Nick Butterfield · Jan 20, 10:17 AM · #

   ---

4. I’m really not so sure it wouldn’t have happened, because I don’t think Republicans are at all interested in real reform. They get by on saying “we just don’t want to do it THAT way” (see also: Chamber of Commerce and climate), but they really have no intentions of dealing with it at all. Compromise with the current GOP essentially means “forget about it.”

   — David Sessions · Jan 20, 10:23 AM · #

   ---

5. Unfortunately, your characterization rings true for many Republicans. But I’m not talking in generalizations. I am talking about one person. One vote. There can be no argument made regarding Olympia Snowe’s bipartisan record. She is no ideologue, frustratingly so at times for rank and file Republicans. Compromise is necessary for the advancement of political agenda in America. This is exactly how our founders intended the system to work, and it’s what has kept scores of terrible bills at bay over the years. The Scott Brown victory is an indicator of a blinding arrogance in the Democratic Party, not an indicator of a broken system. You gotta work with people to get stuff done. I’m pretty sure this is a Kindergarten concept.

   Also, your points above about the “health care bill” are in reference to the Senate bill. The Senate bill was much better than the House bill. But the two would have merged at some point and the resulting bill would have been unrecognizable. Too many interests at stake in the House, because unlike Snowe, Pelosi & Co. are ideologues.

   — Nick Butterfield · Jan 20, 10:32 AM · #

   ---

6. i tend to think that this last year or so have presented smackdowns for both parties. you’ve got a strong independent center who vacillates between the two sides, constantly forced to choose between giant douche and turd sandwich.

   i think david’s right to say it’s a deep disillusionment with the system and demonstrative of the populist anger. i don’t know if there’s anything noble about the election of scott brown. on the other hand, i don’t know if i would say that the american populace lacks fortitude or long-term coherence, so much as these sorts of lurches are inevitable when there are no real choices. perhaps i’m giving into a cynicism here, david, but i do have serious doubts that these bills will do anything except create a medical-industrial complex on par with our military. is it possible that the way americans approach the idea of health is completely wrong? that all the medicine commercials have taught us to think that physicians are magically capable of fixing everything? have we let a parasite into our system? i think there are bigger issues at stake here than whether or not people are covered. i think you are right to identify the republicans as cynical, but that doesn’t mean i support the current bill by default.

   here’s my question: why do we fear our bodies? wendell berry makes a good point that people make money, not according to their skill set or necessity, but according to their power. why have we given the very idea of medicine such power?

   — micah · Jan 20, 12:11 PM · #

   ---

7. I just made the same observation a few hours ago. What you’re saying is more or less true. The idea that this is a “shot heard round the world” moment is simply ludicrous. It’s more likely just one example of the growing issue we have as Americans: entitlement. My disagreement with your article is only in the sense that you say (or in the comments point out) that this isn’t the voters’ fault. I don’t think that could be any less true. No one should have to hold our hands and tell us how to live our lives. We should be intelligent enough to know what is best for us. But we don’t. And it’s not because politicians fool us, it’s because we WANT to be fooled. We are ungovernable because we don’t want to be properly governed. We rush into these MA senate race-like situations because we want to be instantly gratified in every aspect of our lives—politics being no different. This senate race wasn’t a “shot heard round the world” for the little guy who is tired of politics as usual. It WAS politics as usual. It wasn’t some newfangled political incident. We just elected a president a year ago who everyone loved at the time, and now everybody hates because he hasn’t found a way to single-handedly give everyone exactly what they want without having to wait for it.

   Patience is not an American virtue. And so we’ve elected politicians year after year who, to stay elected, need to tell us what we want to hear. Well, we’ve got it. We’ve got people who will lie to us, and promise things they can’t deliver in timeframes that aren’t possible. And we like it that way because we like to bitch about everything.

   Maybe you should revise your article to say not that we are ungovernable, but that we have exactly the government that the average greedy person has been asking for for decades. If we want a government than works, it requires a change in the body of the American people. A real change. Not a change of politicians. Otherwise, we’ll keep getting the same old thing no matter who we elect.

   — Michael Bare · Jan 20, 12:17 PM · #

   ---

8. Micah: you’re possibly right about the medical-industrial complex, but we’ve already got a medical-corporate complex, so what the hell.

   I am no lover of the current bill myself. I support much more radical changes, like the complete abolishment of insurance or complete nationalization of health care. Both put the idea of medicine and health in their proper perspective.

   I’ve chosen to “hope” (even I can’t help being cynical) that this bill – or any bill – will start a process of seriously restructuring our health care industry. Hoping is about all anyone can do.

   — David Sessions · Jan 20, 12:19 PM · #

   ---

9. Michael: Hear, hear. What a great summary. I didn’t mean voters are not responsible for making informed choices, but I meant that I try to understand their irrational, counterproductive reactions as natural responses to something that is broken and that even experts have trouble understanding how to fix. But your point is well taken.

   Thanks especially for pointing out the utter absurdity of saying there is anything heroic or unique about the Brown election. (A wise Republican dissents from that view here.) What bullshit.

   — David Sessions · Jan 20, 12:26 PM · #

   ---

10. Sigh

    — Nick Butterfield · Jan 20, 01:01 PM · #

    ---

11. i heard an interesting solution proposed in the form of “medical guilds” over at the distributist review. not sure how progressive that is (pretty much the opposite, actually), but it at least demonstrated some creativity.

    as far as nationalization, i think that might do the very opposite of putting healthcare into proper perspective, unless you nationalize the medical companies along with them. that, of course, will NEVER happen, so no hoping in that regard. i, by disposition, am suspicious of top-down solutions—and i think for good reason.

    i do agree with the atlantic article that the search for a villain is largely misguided. abstraction is built into our system and these kinds of issues are bound to arise.

    there’s a book, david, called the servile state by hilaire belloc. i think you’d find him eerily prescient. his main thesis is that there can be no purely capitalist system (which he defines as a system in which the majority of citizens are politically free, yet lack economic freedom, and are thus dependent upon capitalists). this is inherently unstable, of course, subject to all the whims and bubbles inherent in such a system. as a result, certain reformers step up and try to bring balance to the system, and the capitalists are forced to compromise: hence, insurance, subsidies, etc. in the end, you have a mass of people who are politically free, yet lacking economic freedom. this lack neuters political freedom (except perhaps, by populist uprisings). you also get a bloated government and financial system that everyone feeds off like pigs. in america, we’ve largely built this system on cheap oil and foreign labor, which is not sustainable.

    i would say the problem is this: political freedom is not enough. people need the economic freedom as well. but this freedom is already, in a sense, given in our state. what it takes are individuals who are willing to do what it takes to build their own economic freedom. and big screen tvs, credit cards, and 30 year loans are not the way…

    — micah · Jan 20, 02:05 PM · #

    ---

12. Anyone who thinks this kind of thing is new is obviously no student of history.

    — Tom · Jan 20, 10:52 PM · #

    ---

13. The Health Care debate is simple for me. Why should I, an independent, blue-collar, new job finding American who needs every last dime I can get have to pay for a surgery of a pack-a-day, sit on the couch, social security dependent? Aren’t I then only aiding the ability for my fellow “citizen” to live an unproductive and selfish lifestyle? For me, the answer is no. I will keep what I earn and give to charities I trust and believe in.

    — MM · Jan 21, 01:45 PM · #

    ---

14. Here’s a good look at some of the things discussed in Mr. Session’s article.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2242075/

    — Jay · Jan 21, 03:37 PM · #

    ---

15. Are we only ungovernable when liberals/Democrats lose? MA really has no reason to want the Dems’ “health care” bill because they already pay taxes for care in their state. They’d just be paying more and giving it to someone else. And I don’t really buy that the Dems are really out to get people care or doctors. When you hear them honestly speak they talk of how this fulfills 100 years of progressive aims, finishes their Third Wave so to speak. For many of them the details don’t matter, the symbolism and pomp of a signing ceremony do. If they want competition, encourage policies to be permitted to be bought across state lines and make 50 markets for the insurers, not state monopolies. Once costs started being removed from the patient/doctor relationship and were dropped into the chasm of HMO’s people lost realization of what something costs or should cost. Advances in technology also aren’t cheap and impact the cost. But gov’t also gave us HMO’s. So I guess we should always look to the federal gov’t for the answer on this.

    — Seth · Jan 21, 04:22 PM · #

    ---

Commenting is closed for this article.