Barb Lindberg and her West River Tea Partiers may not make next Monday's referendum deadline, a regrettably anonymous South Dakota legislator tells National Review Online:
Lindberg was unable to give NRO an estimate of the signatures her group has collected so far. But one state representative who is sympathetic to Lindberg's effort thinks they may miss the cutoff. "I think they're probably going to be short," he says [Brian Bolduc, "South Dakotans Seek Referendum on Obamacare," National Review Online: The Corner, 2011.06.20].
I'm taking a wild guess: Rep. Lance Russell? Come on, SDGOP, 'fess up: who's leaking on the Teabaggers? And why oh why would you want to undermine PR for a grassroots group who brings such enthusiasm to your party?
NRO fails to note Governor Dennis Daugaard's opposition to the referendum drive against Senate Bill 38 and Senate Bill 43. However, Randy Moses of the state Division of Insurance explains to NRO that SB 38 "untangled a few regulatory weeds" and SB 43 expands coverage for young people.
Translation: Teabaggers love regulation and hate kids. (Tea hee!)
Cory,
This is a huge bonus to "Big Insurance". Check who testified in favor of these bills. Also note which type of business our former governer is involved with. Again, you are promoting corporate welfare. When are you going to switch parties?
You're right: ObamaCare is a huge sop to the private insurance lobby, far short of the socialized health care I want. I'll switch parties when the Republicans offer me single-payer.
Cory,
I have always been confused why Republicans hate the version of health care reform that passed. It seems like an insurance company protection act. However, ou may be conceding too much to early. Republicans will offer a single payer eventually. It'll be something like AIG, a multinational company that they have allowed to become too big to fail.
Instead of offering a government run single payer, they'll have us pay all of our premiums to AIG or its equivalent. Big Biz Republicans will be happy, and social conservatives will be happy because all of us will have to pray a lot to get benefits when we need them.
Cory, do you understand Hegelian dialectic? Thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis? Single-payer is the anti-thesis. Corporations getting our money and our freedom is the synthesis. It takes two parties to create the thesis/anti-thesis conflict. Please stop with the party fight and instead work toward "the people" taking back control.
Steve,
What's the original thesis?
Also, it seems to me that Hegel was a bit of an idealist and would reject the nightmarish synthesis that you postulate. He would argue that the synthesis was progress with all of the positive connotations that progress carries.
Your point about Hegel is intriguing. I would contend that the limitations of the two party system and the fact that government and corporations are rapidly becoming indistinguishable illustrate that a true dialectic process cannot occur because government and corporations are successfully limiting discourse.
Just because I refuse to resist being a bit snarky in a good natured way, I have to ask, didn't Hegalism beget Marxism? Are you advocating a Marxist turn?
[CAH: Leo, the moment Steve mentioned Hegel, I knew I could count on you for an astute rejoinder. And Steve, single-payer isn't antithesis; it's the morally and practically superior policy. Forward the Revolution!]
I wouldn't be surprised if it was Lora Hubbel.
I attended a meeting about this and it was totally unorganized. No one really knew what to do or how to explain what Barb was talking about in less than 2 hrs. It was a nightmare.
Cory, the thesis is the status quo. That has been called too expensive, and the free-market has been wrongly blamed. There is no true free-market. It is also false that the Republicans are called free-market advocates. They believe in government intervention. The lies are used to setup the thesis vs anti-thesis fake fight. The synthesis is Obamacare; meaning government setting up regulations that only Big Insurance can comply with (because they wrote the law) thus cutting competition, and resulting in even higher costs. Thus setting up the stage for another round of Hegelian dialectic war.
[Marx use Hegel's dialectic, but he did not like him. Most Marxists believe Hegel was too conservative.]
Note that the conflict is a fake one...Republican corporations vs the Democrat government. It is only theatre to mislead the masses into thinking we are getting what we want. Instead we are just getting more of what caused the problem in the first place...bigger government helping big business to become even bigger.
Cory and Steve,
I do love committing philosophy without a license, so I'll add one more post to this discussion.
I think we all agree on the general outlines of Hegel's dialectic and that Marx viewed Hegel's ideas as a necessary evil. I think that we agree that government and corporations are too cozy. Steve's last post makes me believe that he might concede that this coziness makes a true dialectic as envisioned by Hegel impossible, especially if the choices are false and designed to deceive "the masses." Did you read a little Ortega in college, Steve?
The biggest difference seems to be the views about health care reform. All three us seem to agree that it's unsatisfactory. (My usage of that term might be a prime example of understatement.) Steve seems to think that reform and the mention of single payer counts as an antithesis whereas Cory and I view it as a continuation of the current thesis.
LK,
Yes, the dialectic process is viewed as "evolution" by the socialists versus the revolutionairy approach used by communists. The end-game is the same...statism. The frog's water is now boiling.
Obama and Democrats compromising with Republicans is a bit like negotiating with your hangman about the color of the sack over your head.
Steve, your effort to drag Hegel into this reminds me of Jon Stewart's critique of Fox News. They claim their position is the antithesis to the media bias they perceive from all media with whom they disagree. They claim to be a "counterweight" (thus admitting they themselves are not "fair and balanced"). This position ignores the possibility that the thesis they are countering may actually be the correct position, the result of some prior synthesis (like, perhaps, the synthesis undergone by most other civilized nations who have realized health care is a right that we should all work together to provide).
Cory,
The purpose of Fox News is to foster the Republican/Democrat feud by providing an anti-thesis argument to CNN and the other CFR controlled media fronts. Once I saw Fox News using a CFR member, I truly understood that the same ruling elite control both sides of the political theatre we call "news".
Steve, I might grant you that the corporate media, including Fox and others, as well as many in both political parties, serve corporate interests. That's a different argument. My advocacy for a single-payer health care system is not part of that faux feud or corporate shilldom.
Steve,
I have a series of questions that you might be able to answer. I posted them here http://thedisplacedplainsman.blogspot.com/2011/06/minor-musing-about-politics-and-liberty.html