The Paranoid Style in American Politics

"The Paranoid Style in American Politics"

By Richard Hofstadter†
Harper’s Magazine, November 1964, pp. 77-86.

The higher paranoid scholarship is nothing if not coherent—in fact the paranoid mind is far more coherent than the real world. It is nothing if not scholarly in technique. McCarthy’s 96-page pamphlet, McCarthyism, contains no less than 313 footnote references, and Mr. Welch’s incredible assault on Eisenhower, The Politician, has one hundred pages of bibliography and notes. The entire right-wing movement of our time is a parade of experts, study groups, monographs, footnotes, and bibliographies...

We are all sufferers from history, but the paranoid is a double sufferer, since he is afflicted not only by the real world, with the rest of us, but by his fantasies as well.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html

 

The obvious implication of global warming is that major restrictions on economic growth and private property rights are necessary. Those who find those restrictions unacceptable look for any evidence that global warming is a hoax. They will still be looking when much of Florida is under water, and the alligators there have moved to the Potomac River.

 

There's something strangely appealing about the notion of alligators swimming in the Potomac...

 

I hope they clean up the Potomac by then. It is still fairly polluted.

 

Don't tell me that....I once spent some time on the Potomac in a single scull.

 

News From The Front

It ain't about healthcare. You want the truth about Obamacare? Here it is, from a supporter:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574522680235765894.html

And here's what you have to look forward to if it passes. How many of you proud socialists are ready to submit to the tyranny of Obama's tape measure?

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/japan/091109/fat-japan-youre-breaking-the-law

Ya see, it never really was about improving healthcare, it was always about extending government control over our lives. Live free or die, as the license plate says.

 

Will Health Care Reform Regulate Guns?


Buckeye Firearms Association is a single issue, non-partisan PAC concerned with gun rights. As such, the debate on health care reform occurring across the U.S. is not something that would be within our normal sphere of coverage. However, my good friend Chad Baus posted a story a few days ago highlighting how the Centers for Disease Control has begun researching gun violence and the impact of gun violence on health care costs. This immediately set off alarm bells in my head as the pieces fell into place. Why, you ask?
Health care reform is a brilliant way to regulate guns without violating the Second Amendment.
As an attorney, part of my job is risk management – sit around and think big thoughts on how things could go wrong, and then plan accordingly. (Some of my less charitable friends describe it as "being paid to think of ways to screw things up.")
Health care reform, which seems completely innocuous to gun rights at first blush, is a Trojan Horse. Of that, there can be no doubt. The only real question is whether our enemies will choose to use it as such. Given the string of court and legislative defeats the anti-gun groups have suffered, is there any doubt whether the Brady Bunch will pass up an opportunity to regulate guns in this oblique manner?
Chad's article pointed to a Washington Times editorial taking the CDC to task for circumventing congressional orders to abstain from gun control "research." The original reasoning behind this "research" ban was that the CDC would be using tax dollars to advance a gun control agenda, and the taxpayers rightly put an end to these shenanigans. Now, under President Obama, the CDC is defying this ban by researching "health care costs" and how guns impact health insurance and health care services. If any reader is in doubt as to what the results of this "research" will be, you might as well stop reading now.
So, sometime in the near future, a tax-payer funded study will show that gunshot wounds take up a tremendous amount of medical resources, almost all of which goes unreimbursed, because the victims are uninsured. The study, of course, will fail to mention that the majority of this care goes to criminal/gang elements injured during illegal activities. I will readily concede that the Crips, Bloods, Triad, Mongols and the Mexican Mafia have woefully deficient employee benefit plans (no 401K, dental, paid vacation etc) but is that really a basis for national health insurance policy?
Why should gun owners care that this "research result" will show such an impact on health care costs?
Underwriting.
Insurance premiums are calculated, in part, based upon your risk group. If you smoke, your premiums are higher and/or it is harder to get coverage. Why? Cigarette smoking demonstrably increases your health care costs over the long term. Have diabetes? Ditto. High blood pressure and cholesterol? Get out your wallet.
So now, armed with a "study" showing that the presence of a gun greatly increases health care costs, gun owners are now considered a high risk group and the insurance companies have Science! to back up that claim. "Owning a gun is no different than having cancer..." "No sir, we aren't violating your civil rights. You may still own whatever guns you wish, you just are going to pay at-risk rates rather than preferred rates."
I assure the reader that this scenario is not far-fetched or fanciful, the mechanism is already in place and is capable of operating exactly as I have outlined. The only question is whether the antis will have the political will to use it in such a manner, and to what extent. (i.e would they try to divide us by "finding" that ownership of a $5,000.00 trap gun has no impact on healthcare costs, but ownership of a handgun does and ownership of an ugly black rifle drives the costs right through the roof.)
Here is a preview of the new health insurance application forms:
Name, address, age, gender, height, weight, prior medical conditions, do you smoke, do you own guns, if so how many and what kind....
Then there is the whole issue of de facto gun registration, since this information will now be on your wonderful, portable healthcare chart that is all residing on a computer someplace. Don't forget the new taxes on guns and ammo to help provide insurance for those poor Crips, Bloods, Triad, Mongols and Mexican Mafia members who find themselves suffering from uninsured gunshot wounds incurred during a drug deal gone wrong . The anti-gun possibilities are limited only by the imagination.
Please don't delude yourself into thinking that this would only be part of any "public option" insurance plan. The private insurance companies are going to be in direct competition with any of the pre-existing or new government insurance plans, so if the public plans get an "upcharge" for gun ownership you know the private ones are going to demand this extra money, too. After all, they have Science! to provide the justification for the higher premiums.
These are not paranoid delusions or ramblings, just possibilities that are there for the taking should the political muscle be flexed to do so.
So what do gun owners need to do? We need to be calling our "Congress Critters" and demand, at a minimum, two things. (If you are just outright opposed to any of the health care reform going on, simply add the above objections to the pile of objections you already have when you call in, and skip over making these demands.)
First, any health care reform bill must be absolutely, affirmatively firearm neutral. The law must explicitly state that no insurer, public or private, may use ownership or use of guns as a basis for underwriting or benefit decisions.
Second, any health care reform bill needs to explicitly deny insurance benefit payments for care provided to anyone who is harmed during the commission of a violent felony, and allow hospitals/doctors to choose to refuse treatment to these same people if they feel they can ethically do so. They may ethically feel they have to treat these people, but you and I should not be subsidizing medical care to Johnny Crackhead when he finds himself shot during a robbery, nor should we be subsidizing someone's ethics. It is time these criminals start bearing the consequence of their actions and allow natural selection to work its magic.

 

No Ace the last thing you could do is fuck up my theory because Senator Inhofe has already been debunked as have all the questions and denials that are being spouted by Climate Change deniers. Its really old news Ace,

Here try going through the denier's myths that are highlighted and debunked down a ways in this article. And if you have anything that's not on that list get back to me.

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/20...ating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/

Well now isn't this special. Here you've got one person claiming there is a hidden agenda for health care reform.

But where does it say any proof of this exists? I must have missed that. Maybe you could point it out to me.

It is amusing to see what desperate lengths you're willing to try and stretch your personal paranoia with the last article though about health care measures in Japan as if they are part of the health care reforms being purposed in Congress.

So we've gone from death panels to fat panels have we?

 

Man Ace are you guys ever going off the deep end here. I worry about the level of desperation and paranoia on your side of the debate.

 

Don't worry.

Be happy.

 

Desperation maybe, paranoia certainly,,,, I definately cant understand why you can promote this democratic government healthcare takeover, I just cant picture you accepting the fact that if this shit passes, YOU WILL lose your freedoms to be able to make a decision on your own,I just dont see you accepting that ,'cause the government will be making those decisions for you, there is alot of evidence supporting exactly that.

 

Hogwash. What there IS evidence of is that you don't get to make those decisions yourself now, and neither does your doctor. Your insurance company does.

I'd rather take my chances with the government. Those people at least have to stand for reelection.

 

I'm becoming concerned that when health care reform passes, they're all going to commit mass suicide a la kool-aid.

 

I'm not going alone:excited::excited:

 

Ace that is the opposite of what I'm experiencing and I do mean right now. I went to get some prescriptions filled today and the insurance company said they would not cover them because the doctor prescribed the same medication in two different strengths. They're asking me why the doctor did that and I said because he thought that was the best way to keep the dosages straight. But instead of doing what my doctor thinks is best the insurance company gets to dictate to me what medications I can have at what strength.

So go ahead and tell me about the freedom for my doctor and I to make the decisions he thinks will work best.

And keep in mind this is also after they increased my medical expenses to 40% instead of 20% because my doctor is not part of their "network." But what a strange coincedence there are no neurosurgeons in their network.

Most of these guys aren't the kool aid type. They'll probably just shoot themselves and a few innocent by standers besides.

See what I mean.

 

But you know Ace this is what I don't understand about all this opposition. I'm telling you the reality of what is happening now and has been happening for the past twenty years or so.

You guys keep trying to say that its not the reality that counts. Its what could possibly happen in some distant future.

Ace if I'm getting ripped off right now and insurance company hacks are deciding what treatments and medications and doctors I can have I'm willing to take my chances on several possibilities in the future to do something about the reality of right now.

I know, but I hope we share girls instead of bullets. But I've got both.