Some animals are more equal than others.
Jul. 29th, 2009 07:58 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I don't know how many of you caught the latest Bill Kristol evisceration on the Daily Show, but you can watch some of it via this Sadly, No! post. I have to say I had precisely the same reaction to Kristol's "The troops deserve better health care than anybody else," as the blogger and Jon, though I hadn't quite followed it to its logical conclusion:
But the key to this whole thing is that Kristol actually seems to be advocating worse health care policy for non-military members … for the express purpose of ensuring that the troops get ‘better health care’ than everybody else (Fox News contributors and senators excepted, natch). Think about that — Kristol wants to artificially maintain lower standards of health care for some people so that some other people can say their own health care provisions are ‘better’. That’s a tacit admission from one of conservatism’s ‘leading lights’ that better health care policy is not a zero-sum game … but we should make it so in deference to wingnut military fetishism.
After all, if your health care isn’t shittier than that of the troops … how can the troops say they have better health care? That’s the logic and it is fucking mind-boggling.
tigrismus adds in comments:
“Some should have it better” is the wingnut modus operandi in every field. Tax policy, welfare policy, healthcare, everything is predicated on some “deserving” class reaping benefits at the expense of some “undeserving” class. Even if you could prove absolutely that their “deserving” class would benefit more in a “rising tide lifting all boats” scenario (e.g. the wealthy under Clinton) it wouldn’t be enough to them: they’d rather make less in real terms as long as the “undeserving” are doing even worse, as long as the gap is widening.
But the key to this whole thing is that Kristol actually seems to be advocating worse health care policy for non-military members … for the express purpose of ensuring that the troops get ‘better health care’ than everybody else (Fox News contributors and senators excepted, natch). Think about that — Kristol wants to artificially maintain lower standards of health care for some people so that some other people can say their own health care provisions are ‘better’. That’s a tacit admission from one of conservatism’s ‘leading lights’ that better health care policy is not a zero-sum game … but we should make it so in deference to wingnut military fetishism.
After all, if your health care isn’t shittier than that of the troops … how can the troops say they have better health care? That’s the logic and it is fucking mind-boggling.
tigrismus adds in comments:
“Some should have it better” is the wingnut modus operandi in every field. Tax policy, welfare policy, healthcare, everything is predicated on some “deserving” class reaping benefits at the expense of some “undeserving” class. Even if you could prove absolutely that their “deserving” class would benefit more in a “rising tide lifting all boats” scenario (e.g. the wealthy under Clinton) it wouldn’t be enough to them: they’d rather make less in real terms as long as the “undeserving” are doing even worse, as long as the gap is widening.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-29 03:34 pm (UTC)Seriously, you can't argue with these people. Anyone who believes in Divine Right is beyond all hope of reason.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-29 03:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-29 04:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-29 05:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-29 04:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-29 04:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-29 05:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-29 05:17 pm (UTC)There might be a few women mixed in, but yeah, predominantly.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-30 07:19 am (UTC)