Logan’s end-run.
Let’s see: this post from Big Media Matt leads to this post from Tomorrow’s Pundit Today Ezra Klein commenting on five minutes in which SEIU’s Andy Stern told CAP’s CampusProgress.org the following—
We’re thinking of creating a new organization called My Life that would be mainly focused on 18 to 34 year olds. It would be web-based, and what it would allow people to do is purchase on a national level health care that you can move from job to job. You’d also be able to do things like tweak your resume on file permanently in your personal account. You could access debit cards potentially and start doing some of the new financial transactions like putting money on your cell phone. It would have opportunities for people to network with other people who are doing similar jobs or somewhat of a Craigslist-type function. It would be in some ways what AARP is for seniors: a place that advocates on their behalf. But clearly it’s a different form of organization; whether you call that a union, or an internet community, or an association, I’m not sure. But it has that kind of potential.
—which reminded me of a post from Old Skool Nick Confessore from back in the dark post-election depression of 2004:
Imagine an endeavor under which the official Democratic Party sponsored a non-profit health-insurance corporation, one which offered some form of health insurance to anyone who joined the party—say, with a $50 “membership fee.” Since I’m not a health care wonk, I don’t know how you’d structure such a business, or what all the pitfalls might be, or even if such a thing is possible or desirable. But I can think of some theoretical advantages. The Democrats could put into practice, right away, their ideas for the kind of health insurance they think we all ought to have. They could build their grassroots and deliver tangible benefits to members. Imagine a good HMO, run not for profit and in the public interest, along the lines the Democrats keep telling us all existing HMOs and health care providers should be run.
Which, yes yes yes. More, please. And of course you’d call that a “union.” Allow me to quote Utah Philips quoting some other guy—
Thus proving everlastingly what a union is: a way to get things done together that you can’t get done alone.
And to play for a moment the game of US and THEM: THEY are already out there, in their megachurches, patching the holes THEY’ve made in the social safety net: “First, you find a church.”
MBC is a mega-church with a parking garage that could serve a medium-sized airport, but many smaller evangelical churches offer a similar array of services—childcare, after-school programs, ESL lessons, help in finding a job, not to mention the occasional cash handout. A woman I met in Minneapolis gave me her strategy for surviving bouts of destitution: “First, you find a church.” A trailer-park dweller in Grand Rapids told me that he often turned to his church for help with the rent. Got a drinking problem, a vicious spouse, a wayward child, a bill due? Find a church. The closest analogy to America’s bureaucratized evangelical movement is Hamas, which draws in poverty-stricken Palestinians through its own miniature welfare state.
US could really use some more boots on this particular ground. Because let’s be honest, here: the point isn’t (just) to do good works. It’s to bind people to your party, your argument, your worldview; to provide, as Matt put it above, “the capacity to take people who aren’t ‘political’ sorts and make them see that politics is interested in them even if they aren’t interested in politics.” —That comparison with Hamas isn’t only a knee-slapper at the expense of the faith-based.
But let’s be further honest: one of the benefits of getting help from—and moreso of supporting the help given by—something like a megachurch is the ugly, comforting knowledge that the wrong people won’t be getting any. THEY must go elsewhere, and if they haven’t any elsewhere to go, it’s their own damn fault. —Partisan; exclusionary; tribal; the meanest of means tests, and Avedon Carol rings an important alarum re: My Life—
And this would mean, what? That you lose your healthcare once you hit a certain age, and then it jumps in costs because you’ll be in the other part of the demographic?
Now, Stern does say My Life would be “mainly focused on 18 to 34 year olds,” not limited to. And I think it’s a function of who would be likely to buy into the whole internet-mediated social networking 2.0 thing, as well as looking to reach out to people whose worklives no longer allow for unions as we’ve known them, and not a function of selecting only the young and liberal and secular and hip and healthy. —But the ugliness under the game of US and THEM is something to keep in mind: the whole point of the safety net, after all, is that it’s there for all of us, any of us, no matter what, should we need it. No binding other than citizenship required.
Also, “My Life”? Ack. Could it possibly be called something else—or is it actively intended to disincline folks like me, on the far side of the demographic line?
(I suppose it’s better than Welfr.)
(I suppose it’s better than Welfr.)
Giggle.
No, My Life would not work. Optional health insurance tends to be a loser; almost everyone overestimates their health, hence they think that the rates are too high and they’d be better off self-insuring. The one group that does know they need insurance, is the ones that are actually sick, especially chronically ill. They cost lots of money, which drives up rates, which drives out the only-slightly-sick, and so on.
We need universal healthcare now. It works, better (on every single metric that matters) and cheaper, in about 20 other countries of statistically interesting size. Portugal, Ireland, and Greece are kicking our ass in healthcare, never mind Japan, France, and Scandinavia.