“The problem is that our leadership class no longer views Americans as adult constituents capable of making our own decisions: the [sic] view us the way parents view their preschool children.”

A commenter at the Guardian (!) on the recently passed Senate Health Care bill. The entire thread is worth reading, particularly for her comments:

Maybe I’ll cash in by starting my own insurance company. “Jennifer’s House of Health Insurance and Vintage Clothing.” The premium will be a flat $100 per person per year, with a five-million-dollar deductible. “But Jennifer!” you might protest. “If I have enough money to pay five million dollars a year in health costs, what the hell use is your insurance company to me?”

My answer: the use of my insurance company is that you can tell the government “I have the goddamned mandatory insurance policy, so bugger off and don’t even THINK of putting me in prison for lack of compliance.” Frankly, the poor people in Massachusetts would be better off with my insurance than the insurance they have now: they couldn’t afford my five million deductible, no, but they can’t afford the deductible they already have either. At least under my plan, that family of four will only have to shell out $400 a year for worthless insurance, rather than several thousand dollars.commenter Jennifer Abel

12 thoughts on ““The problem is that our leadership class no longer views Americans as adult constituents capable of making our own decisions: the [<i>sic</i>] view us the way parents view their preschool children.””

  1. Unfortunately for Jennifer it is illegal to start an insurance company in the US without first getting the permission of the state superintendent of insurance, which involves a great deal of bureaucratic rigmarole, and a cash bond of a large some of money.

    But, we appreciate the thought.

  2. It is strange that social equity legislation this profound requires such naked corruption to pass despite the Democrats’ near total control of the government and media. Unless of course corruption is the real goal.

  3. Thanks for the shout-out! Incidentally, I’m one of the Guardian’s token libertarian op-ed writers; in that context, my lack of faith in our leadership class really shouldn’t surprise anyone.

  4. “they view us the way parents view their preschool children”…not precisely. Most parents want to help their children develop to the point where they *can* make their own rational decisions.

    These leaders really view us the way a pet owner would view a particularly un-bright pet, or (less benignly) the way a livestock farmer views his stock.

  5. Robert Schwartz – thanks! I don’t know why I seem to think that html doesn’t work in the header? (Also, yeah, I agree – the sentiment is much appreciated! I also appreciate anyone so patiently batting back some of the more outlandish claims in the thread.)

    PCP – “social equity legislation” – that’s a good way of putting it. Another way to say that irksome phrase, “social justice,” I suppose.

    Jennifer – it is SO cool that you stopped by! Now I have to go and read all your stuff (embarrassingly, I did not know that there *was* a libertarian op-ed writer at the Guardian! Learn something new every day!)

    David Foster – so, in other words, “sheep!” :)

  6. PCP–

    OF COURSE corruption is the real goal.

    How could anyone have watched this the last 6 months and not know that?

  7. Also unfortunately for Jennifer’s nascent insurance business, only certain policies are to be permitted – those approved by the “Health Choices Commissioner”, who is in charge of limiting insurance choices. Basically, last time I checked this – which was some weeks ago, so who the hell knows at this point – but back then, three “levels” of insurance were to be permitted. All three were to be comprehensive insurance plans – no catastrophic/indemnity/”true” insurance allowed – with the differences between levels being in such things as deductible, copayment amounts, and coinsurance percentages. To be eligible to be listed on the Exchange, all insurance plans would have to be one of the three permitted types.

    So purchasing Jennifer’s fine insurance product would not get the feds off your back. They’ve thought of that already.

  8. Taxpayers are the livestock, welfare recipients are the pets. As livestock we are more like milk cows or wool sheep, or maybe plowhorses, than beef cattle or pigs. We are kept alive so as to produce so that they may consume. They are starting to rationalize the process, as it is becoming too expensive to allow the plowhorses to live after they can no longer pull the plows.

    Welfare recipients are like pets; they are kept alive to fulfill symbolic functions and to express gratitude by purring, sitting up and begging, and filling up ACORN rallies.

  9. The regulatory trend – which, let it be noted, started with the last administration’s response to Enron, 9/11, and the financial crisis – has reached the high point in my (by now longish)life. There is clearly a sense by the elites that they are the good shepherds, and that we, the ordinary citizens, are a dimwitted herd.

    Since we elected these elites,I have trouble blaming anyone but us, however.

    See “The regulated citizen”:


  10. It doesn’t of course help that these “elites” are fabulously and ruinously corrupt.

    Yesterday the desperate gamblers proposed selling shares of GDP called “trills” or trillonths of shares of GDP.

    The first resort of a bankrupt government is inflation, the second is war.
    The third resort is to begin selling off parcels of the country, which is where they are headed next.

Comments are closed.