Skip to main content

Here Goes, Doug

Berkley MI
Saturday
I’ve been challenged by my friend Doug, an Ontario resident, to explain to bewildered Canadians “why the current health crisis will/will not move the U.S.A. toward universal health care.” He provided an imaginative list of colorful words that he admonished me not to use, but he didn’t include “dumbfuck,” which has been used in these pages previously, and will no doubt continue to find apt uses.

The answer to Doug’s question is, of course, it depends. It depends—more than it’s ever depended before—on what happens between now and the November election. The future of American healthcare is only one thing—and by no means the most important thing—that will hang in the balance.

America as a concept has been breaking down before our eyes for some time. This virus is exacerbating all the forces contributing to that breakdown, and injecting a panicked urgency into the mix. The possibilities for the next eight months are as staggering as they are fraught with peril.

The happy ending would be that Republicans are overwhelmed in the election, ceding the presidency and all of Congress, ushering in a Democratic administration that (a) immediately brings criminal charges against a hundred or so people starting with Trump and his entire family, and (b) moves to restore enough of both the government and the healthcare system that a universal plan of some kind can, however painfully, emerge.

I’m rolling my eyes even as I write this, but it must be said that this outcome is significantly more likely than it has ever been. Which is not to say it’s likely. But I’m guessing some 60 percent of the electorate is enraged at and embarrassed by our dumbfuck president (there, I got one in). Not to mention everyone around him. And that was before the virus. In a fair election, I have no doubt he will lose. But let’s not be naïve.

At the extreme other end, the nightmare scenario would be that the country devolves into a dystopian anarchy that our methodically dismantled government simply cannot deal with, which moves Trump to declare emergency powers and cancel the election. This would be a shitstorm I can’t even get my brain around, which would, among other things, surely spell the end of the healthcare discussion for many years—which would be the least of our problems. As crazy as this sounds, can anyone looking ahead at the next few months seriously dismiss it as a possibility? Again, let’s not be naïve.

Of course, there are any number of possibilities in between these two extremes, and any scenario will be subject to a whole deck full of wild cards:  the course of the virus, the damage it does to the economy and society, the chances of holding a fair election (not promising), the chances of holding any election at all (better than 50-50, but not by much), and whether there’s anything left of either our institutions or our medical system once the dust clears. And that’s leaving social breakdown and civil unrest out of the equation.

I feel like I’ve answered a question with a question, or with a lot of questions, but only because the real answer is Who the fuck knows?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Was Obamacare Saved When We Weren’t Looking?

A few years ago, I posted to this blog a piece of pure speculation . It was about the failure of Senate Republicans to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2017. Based on no evidence whatsoever, I posited that the Senate vote had failed because Mitch McConnell had rigged it to fail. My reasoning was that even though Republicans had been screaming for the repeal of “Obamacare” since its inception, repeal was the last thing they actually wanted. Sure, they’ve had a jolly old time trashing the ACA over the years. Trump lost no opportunity to call it “a total disaster” in his 2016 campaign. But the prospect of coming up with a workable replacement for a healthcare system so big and complex was something the GOP had neither the intelligence nor the policy chops to take seriously. Republicans don’t go into government to govern. Still, even they could see that the ACA had grown remarkably popular over the years — people with health insurance tend to be protective...

The MAGA Agenda is Hardly a Slam Dunk

  I’ve long had a morbid fascination with totalitarian states, starting with a major in Soviet Studies back in college. I immersed myself in the Orwellian mechanics of Stalin’s four-decade reign of terror, and I’ve been a student of autocracies, kleptocracies, theocracies, and hypocrisies ever since. I will eagerly engage in any conversation about Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, or Muammar Khadaffi, even if I don’t know what I’m talking about. One thing they all had in common was the prioritization of loyalty over ability. The people charged with carrying out the regime’s agenda inevitably lurched their way into remarkable inefficiencies and dysfunction, which, in almost every case, culminated in the collapse of the regime itself. Not that they didn’t do cataclysmic damage in the meantime. Of course, I was fortunate to be studying these rogues from a distance, and the thought of actually living under one of them was, until recently, the furthest thing fr...

Don’t Let the New York Times Do Your Thinking

  A few weeks ago, I revisited my least popular post of all time, so there’s a certain symmetry to my now offering my most popular one — or at least my most-opened. It was written in mid-summer of this year, a bit recent for a look-back, yet it seems to take on more resonance as the Times continues to indulge in collaboration with a fledgling regime bent on fascist takeover.   My father would not live any place where the  New York Times  couldn’t be delivered before 7:00 a.m. To him, the  Times  was “the newspaper of record,” the keeper of the first drafts of history. It had the reach and the resources to be anywhere history was being made, and the skills to report it accurately. He trusted it more than any other news source, including Walter Cronkite. Like my dad, I grew to associate the  Times  with serious journalism, the first place one goes for the straight story. Their news was always assumed to be objectively present...