Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 08-05-2009, 12:42 PM

um first off i really have no idea, apart from the number 40 million, what makes you assume that i am repeating (spewing as you so daintily put it) a line from either of the rather sad mass political parties.

i don't recall the french system factoring into debates in the state much at all---i assumed this was a function of parochialism---you know, that most of what's available about the system is written in french.

secondly, i really have no idea what possible basis you can have for arguing in effect that because you work in insurance that you have a monopoly on the coherent way to frame the question of what to do about the health care system. you've done it several times.

again, the information that you've offered is interesting, but its relevance to the discussion hinges on the kind of discussion that it is--you want to restrict it to a technical discussion which presupposes that the existing system is functional and legitimate.
you don't seem to recognize that you do this because, it appears, you default into this position because your technical knowledge presupposes it.

but what happens if the organization and orientation of the american insurance industry is a significant expression of the problems that the thread is designed to address?

one thing that means is that your viewpoint gets positioned in a way that you might not like.
obviously you recognize that implicitly, if your pissiness in response to my reply is any indication.
but you don't seem to even go as far as to acknowledge that the industry which situates your technical knowledge is a player in this game, with very particular interests at stake in this game, and so your attempt to position yourself as The Man with respect to the game as a whole amounts to a political move on your part.

the next move you make is predictable and frnakly kinda depressing and crude: if you do not work in the same industry--which appears to mean also that if you do not share your particular understanding of what is and is not a political interest within this larger debate--then you cannot know what you're talking about.

so what you're saying, rahl, is that the question of what should happen should be decided by a technocratic panel of people like yourself whose institutional interests militate against any change at all.

and anyone who disagrees with you on that is some partisan shill.
not the paragon of neutrality that you are.

again, if the debate were actually about the existing system, you'd be in a pretty strong place to position yourself as you do.
but given that the debate is not about that, but about how to change that system, you aren't in a strong position.
no amount of snarkiness changes that.

08-05-2009, 12:42 PM	#49 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	um first off i really have no idea, apart from the number 40 million, what makes you assume that i am repeating (spewing as you so daintily put it) a line from either of the rather sad mass political parties. i don't recall the french system factoring into debates in the state much at all---i assumed this was a function of parochialism---you know, that most of what's available about the system is written in french. secondly, i really have no idea what possible basis you can have for arguing in effect that because you work in insurance that you have a monopoly on the coherent way to frame the question of what to do about the health care system. you've done it several times. again, the information that you've offered is interesting, but its relevance to the discussion hinges on the kind of discussion that it is--you want to restrict it to a technical discussion which presupposes that the existing system is functional and legitimate. you don't seem to recognize that you do this because, it appears, you default into this position because your technical knowledge presupposes it. but what happens if the organization and orientation of the american insurance industry is a significant expression of the problems that the thread is designed to address? one thing that means is that your viewpoint gets positioned in a way that you might not like. obviously you recognize that implicitly, if your pissiness in response to my reply is any indication. but you don't seem to even go as far as to acknowledge that the industry which situates your technical knowledge is a player in this game, with very particular interests at stake in this game, and so your attempt to position yourself as The Man with respect to the game as a whole amounts to a political move on your part. the next move you make is predictable and frnakly kinda depressing and crude: if you do not work in the same industry--which appears to mean also that if you do not share your particular understanding of what is and is not a political interest within this larger debate--then you cannot know what you're talking about. so what you're saying, rahl, is that the question of what should happen should be decided by a technocratic panel of people like yourself whose institutional interests militate against any change at all. and anyone who disagrees with you on that is some partisan shill. not the paragon of neutrality that you are. again, if the debate were actually about the existing system, you'd be in a pretty strong place to position yourself as you do. but given that the debate is not about that, but about how to change that system, you aren't in a strong position. no amount of snarkiness changes that. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite