A Word for Paul Ryan: White Women

Recently snarky BuzzFeed reporter MvKay Coppins followed Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) around as he worked to build outreach to blacks.

Yeah.  Whaddya know. Ryan was uncomfortable relating to black male convicts.  But when he went on to a lunch with businessmen he had all the one-liners down perfect.

I think it's wonderful that Paul Ryan, who is my idea of a worthy and principled politician, is trying to find ways of connecting to black voters.  It's not going to yield much in the way of votes for a long while, I'm afraid.

But there is something for more important out there for Paul Ryan to work on.  White women.  And I'll tell you why.

I attended a reunion at the consulting firm I used to work for up until 1996.  It was an engineering firm, and most of the folks there were practicing or retired engineers.  Salt of the earth guys, and all that.

But one thing hit me between the eyes.  I talked to some of the women there, technicians and assistants mostly, and a couple of them said they were "looking for work."

These are women in their fifties to sixties.  And they are looking for work.

Hello Obama economy.

Here is my advice to Paul Ryan and the Republican presidential contenders. Forget about the black vote for now.  Get to work on the white women vote.  Because white women are getting hammered, and I reckon they are up for grabs in 2014 and 2016.

What are these women thinking?  What do they think has gone wrong?  How can Republicans communicate the idea that government is not the solution?  How can Republicans gently shift them away from the idea that Hillary Clinton needs to be the First Woman President?

The problem is that women more than men are suckers for the liberal line in everything from the schools to the local news to the War on Women propaganda.  Women are more social; they are more conformist; they go with the program.

But we conservatives and Republicans are asking women to buck the local news, show the finger to cries of sexism, ignore their aggressive liberal women friends, and try something new and dangerous.

We are asking women to buck the collective consensus on women's victimhood that lets government take care of things.  Instead we want them to become responsible individualists and vote for small government and large people.

We want them to buck the idea that free contraception and unlimited abortion are the keys to women's liberation.

We want them to back away from government schooling, global warming, hyper-regulation of business, when all the government experts are telling women to go with the program.

How do we do that, Rep. Ryan?  That's far more important and necessary than a worthy -- and necessarily long term -- effort to find common ground with African Americans.

Telling it like it is: The Obama Purges

If we go back to the good old days of the Stalin Purges in the 1930s, what do we learn?  What made them different from just good old jailing of regime opponents?

After all, with modern police and incarceration methods, a repressive government can easily jail and disappear its opponents.  That's what the Argentine generals did to the lefty Montoneros back during their military junta days.  Argentine lefties are still complaining about it.

For Stalin, merely arresting his co-Bolshevik revolutionaries and disappearing them wasn't enough.  They had to confess.  There had to be a conspiracy against the father of his people, Comrade Stalin.  The heretics had to grovel before being tossed into the auto da fè.

So the Stalin Purges echoed the spirit of the Spanish Inquisition, another enforcer of orthodoxy.  Actually, in modern terms, the Spanish Inquisition was pretty mild.  It usually never got further than showing its victims the instruments of torture.  That was enough to get them to confess to horrible crimes and heresies.

When Barack Obama was elected as the United States First Black President many Americans thought that the long national nightmare on race was over.  We thought that the lion would lie down with the lamb and the race wars would be consigned to the dustbin of history.  We instinctively thought that the president would tell the race baiters to cool their jets.

In fact the opposite has occurred.  Whenever there is a race incident, from a black professor being stopped and frisked at his house in Cambridge, Massachusetts, or a black kid getting gunned down by a White Hispanic, or a rich sports-team owner spewing racial epithets at his mistress, the president steps in and amps up the outrage.

Now you would think that, fifty years after the end of government-sponsored racial segregation that we could draw a line under racism and say, look, there are a lot of white people that don't like black people.  But the fact is that they don't have political power.  There are laws to penalize racist acts.  Let's not get too overheated about what is in peoples' hearts and minds.

Government, after all, is not supposed to be worrying about hearts and minds, but the law.  That's what Janet Reno told us when the mood took her.

Forget government, it is religion that is supposed to worry about hearts and minds.

But our modern secular religions combine politics and religion into a single proto-totalitarian cult of the state.  Therefore in a modern secular liberal society, it does too matter what people are thinking.  And it does too matter that racist and sexist thoughts are swirling around out there.  It follows that they should be expunged, and that proper confessions should be made after people have been shown the instruments of torture.

President Obama has set a clear example to his co-religionists.  Heretics should be hunted down and publicly shamed.

With the example of their lightbringer before them, the followers of President Obama diligently search not just for criminal acts against the government of secular liberalism, but heretical thoughts against the gods of race, gender, and class.

Do they ever.

So we are justified in calling the present era the years of the Obama Purges.

President Obama and his supporters are eager to teach their ideological opponents a lesson.  Resistance is futile, they communicate in word and deed.

Maybe so.  But the problem with repression is that there are two responses.  One is to knuckle under to the new world order.  The other is to form a movement of resistance.  Some people conform; others rebel.

Which response will win out?

The Real Inequality Problem

Liberals are all worked up about inequality, and we know why.  They want more power.

Thus we can expect the argument for all liberal proposals to give liberals more power and control over the American people to be: Because inequality.

But there really is an inequality problem, writes Cathy Reisenwitz, and Republicans need to face up to it.  You can't just dismiss is as class warfare.  Otherwise the battlefield will belong to Democrats.

Googleing “income inequality” brings up a host of non-jealousy related reasons to care about it. One reason is that it hurts economic growth when the rich see their incomes rise but the poor don’t. The reason? The poor spend their extra wages, unlike the wealthy. Another reason is that income inequality hurts class mobility by making it more difficult for kids to go to college.

You can agree or disagree with those ideas, but people believe them.

I haven't read Thomas Piketty's Capitalism in the Twenty-first Century yet, so I can't comment on his idea that capitalist earn 4-5 percent on their money in perpetuity, while ordinary stiffs get back 1-2 percent because that how fast GDP growth works.  My copy arrives May 2.

But Piketty's reported solution is a laugher.  A global wealth tax?  So the Google guys will pay 1 percent of their wealth per year so politicians can spend it on programs rather than the Google guys on better software?

I don't think so.  Politicians spend money on their supporters, not on growing the economy to reduce inequality.

And really, looking at inequality without looking at the operations of government is clueless. (But then Piketty wouldn't have had the success he's had if he proposed to curb government!)

Let's enumerate a few ways in which government promotes inequality, while accepting the idea that the capitalists have an unfair advantage.

1. Social Security.  This is a government transfer program not a wealth builder.  Let's reform Social Security so that people have private accounts that they can pass on, tax-free, to their descendants.
   
2. Medicare.  This is a government transfer program that encourages seniors to consume excessive amounts of routine healthcare.  Let's reform Medicare so that people save in their working years for Medicare, and pay for routine health care in retirement out of their personal capital income.  Then they get to pass the residue on to their descendants, tax-free.
   
3. Unemployment, Workers Comp, Disability.  All these programs take money out of the hands of working people and give the monies to politicians.  Suppose people had their own personal unemployment account.  Then they could forego their right to long periods between jobs and get a new job quicker.  They would end up richer and could enjoy the capitalist income that the rich enjoy.  Then they could pass on their filthy lucre to their descendants.
   
4. Crony capitalism.  All the cool things that government does, from mass transit to renewable energy, benefits rich, well-connected supporters of politicians.  How unequal is that?

Yeah.  And so on.  So now let's just segue to Charles Murray, who is now too controversial to speak at Azusa Pacific University.  Murray has been writing the same book for 30 years.  First it was Losing Ground.  Now it's Coming Apart.  Murray makes the point, again and again, that the welfare state is really cool for the top 25 percent.  We 25% guys are educated, have cool jobs, stay married and send our kids to college.  But the further down you go, the more you are talking about government benefits and less marriage and less work and less community.

You wanna talk about inequality, you need to talk about the murrain that the liberal welfare state has sown among the poor.

But liberals don't want to talk about that, and they don't want anyone else to talk about it either.  Because inequality.

"Gross Output:" Does It Matter?

Today, Friday April 25, 2014, the federal government's Bureau of Economic Analysis produced its first report on "Gross Output" as part of its report on GDP by industry. It is a computation of the economy's output similar to Gross Domestic Product, except that it includes as output all the intermediary stages in the production of the domestic product.  You can find the data here.

Does it matter?  Economist Mark Skousen argues that it does.  In the Wall Street Journal he writes:

Why pay attention to gross output? For starters, research I published in 1990 shows it does a better job of measuring total economic activity. GDP is a useful measure of a country's standard of living and economic growth. But its focus on final output omits intermediate production and as a result creates much mischief in our understanding of how the economy works.

And, Mark writes, it corrects "the misguided Keynesian notion that consumer and government spending drive the economy rather than saving, business investment, technology and entrepreneurship."

OK, Good.  But what difference does it make to, e.g., usgovernmentspending.com?  I pulled up the first numbers from the BEA to take a look.  Right now, there are only numbers going back to 2005.  I hope that this will change.  Here's what you get.

Gross Output vs. Gross Domestic Product

Year	Gross Output $ billion	GDP $ billion	GO/GDP
2005	23517.2	13095.4	1.80
2006	24891.8	13857.9	1.80
2007	26157.2	14480.3	1.81
2008	26825.8	14720.3	1.82
2009	24655.2	14417.9	1.71
2010	26097.3	14958.3	1.74
2011	27526.9	15533.8	1.77
2012	28693.5	16244.6	1.77
2013	29667.2	16797.5	1.77

OK. That's nice. You can see that Gross Output was tooling along at 1.8 times GDP until the Great Recession, and then it retreated back to 1.71 in 2009.  By 2013 still hasn't recovered to its pre-recession relation.

So what does it look if you run a chart of federal spending over at usgovernmentspending.com?

Here's federal spending as a percent of GDP.

And here's federal spending as a percent of Gross Output.

What does it tell us?  Not much.  Maybe the Great Recession looks a little deeper with the GO numbers than the GDP numbers, but who cares?

What we really need is for the BEA to extend the data series back to 1930, like their GDP series.  You would think that  today's economy has more intermediary production than the economy of 1930.  But we can't be sure unless we get to take a look.

When Stupid LIberals Become Evil

I wonder if it’s time to update Charles Krauthammer’s catchphrase about liberals and conservatives. Conservatives think liberals are stupid; liberals think conservatives are evil, says Dr. K.

Because if you are stupid enough to believe that your political opponents are “evil”, then you are stupid enough to wander into the paths of evil. Like right now.

If you are stupid enough to think that the practice of politics is exhausted by the politics of the community organizer, and that the only thing you need to do is to rally your troops with racist, sexist, classist catchphrases, then you really don’t deserve to govern in America.

I have my own catchphrases, and one of them is that “politics is division.”

There is, or at least I hope there is, a warning in that catchphrase. If you want to have a society in which people are doing something more than fighting each other over loot and plunder then you’ll have to make your politics extend to something a little bigger than mere division of the nation into “us” -- the good, the evolved, the educated -- and “them.”

And we know that liberals know this because they keep blathering on about the “other.” Except that if you are a sophisticated liberal that knows your German philosophy you will talk on a slightly higher plane about “ego” and “alter” of course.

When liberals reduce their politics, as the president seems to be doing this season, to efforts to rile up the race base, with speeches at the convention of the racist National Action Network, or rile up the feminist base with lawyers’ protection bills like the Paycheck Fairness Act that makes employers guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent, or with class appeals like the president’s minimum wage policy, when liberals do that then conservatives have every reason to wonder if liberals are something worse than stupid.

Because you are basically saying that there is no compromise with the other side. They must be destroyed.

How are you going to be able to work with people across the aisle after such a season of naked race, sex, and class baiting?

Now we have the IRS scandal, which seems to be escalating beyond mere efforts to embarrass conservatives trying to organize for political action into efforts to trick conservatives into criminal acts.

In the opinion of J. Christian Adams these efforts of the liberals stem from the thinking and the doing of their left-wing activist base. He goes into a lot of detail showing how these groups have persuaded themselves that right-wing speech is illegitimate and should be censored.  They even have University of California at Irvine Law Professor Rick Hasen with a blog to bring all the speech regulators together.

We all make a joke about this, and chuckle about the inanities of “political correctness.” But think about this. Liberals, the ones that lecture us about the “other,” seem not to understand the danger to themselves of censoring the “other’” speech.

What do I mean by this? I mean this: Does it not occur to liberals that when you censor other peoples’ speech it makes them really angry? Does it not occur to liberals that one of the reasons we have the First Amendment is to provide people with a safety valve? They may not get what they want from the political process but at least they have the right to peaceably assemble and present their grievances. If people present their ideas and then get defeated in a fair election, they they are likely to go home and feel that they have at least had a chance to make their case.

The only way this regulation of other peoples' speech works in the long term is if you are prepared to go Full Monty totalitarian and put your opponents in the gulag.  I presume that liberals are not planning to do that.  Not yet.

So why don’t liberals have the common courtesy of letting their opponents organize politically without harassment?  How come that they are stupid enough to harass their opponents enough to make them really angry?

Well we know how all this comes about. It comes about because politics for liberals is a kind of religion. It is not just a practical thing about repressing violent foreign powers and violent domestic criminals. Politics is also about right and wrong, good and evil. It is also about saving society from injustice.

It is very easy, when your politics is to you religious, to make the next logical step, and try to suppress the Evil One. Nobody needs to ask Satan how he feels about things; you just stick it to him.

This is why I think that liberals are in for the worst times they can imagine. Ordinary, decent people are going to be shocked and indignant as they slowly get the picture on the corruptions and the repressions of the Obama administration -- let alone angry that they can’t keep their doctor and can’t keep their health plan.

Of all people, liberals should know this. They were beside themselves during the Bush administration, absolutely outraged by Christian conservatives in positions of government power. Can they not therefore see that conservatives might be absolutely outraged by what they experience as liberal abuse of power?

Answer: no they can’t. They can’t see it. It’s comical, in a way, because liberals have built a huge edifice of developmental psychology to account for the fact that most people can’t see other peoples’ point of view, starting with people that cannot even experience the possibility of other points of view. Only at the upper reaches of developmental psychological systems are there people that can put themselves in the place of the “other” and can understand the fact of other people, other ideas, other world views as perfectly natural and physical. Yet the liberal psychologists are about the worst when it comes to political intolerance.

And because liberals live in a bubble and have a way of forbidding anyone from uttering a discouraging word, they won’t know what’s hit them until it’s hit them.

Stop Complicating Home Finance

The US Senate is presently putting together what reads like Obamacare for Mortgages, a fiendishly complicated bill that will privatize, yet super-regulate home mortgages -- with a ton of special subsidy programs to queer the whole thing into a nightmare.  At least that's what the Wall Street Journal reports.

So the political elite hasn't learned from the Great Crash of 2008.  And no wonder.  Democrats have been indefatigable in blaming greedy bankers for the problem, rather than face the truth, that the deliberate federal policy to subsidize home mortgages forced bankers to extend loans to people that couldn't afford them.  If you read The New York Times and listen to NPR you wouldn't have a clue about what really went down.

It gets worse.  Here's a report on some focus groups of Option-ARM mortgage borrowers conducted for now-defunct Washington Mutual back in 2003.  The borrowers really had no clue what they had signed up for, with low payments and negative amortization for now followed by huge increased payments later on.  They knew they had a great deal -- for now -- but really weren't thinking too hard about what came later.

Yes.  WaMu was staggeringly negligent in pushing out mortgages to people that didn't have a clue what they were getting into.  But WaMu was just dutifully implementing national policy, pushed  by liberals for a generation.  It started with liberal activists complaining about "red-lining" in the 1970s.  Red-lining referred to the reluctance banks showed in loaning money on inner-city homes.  And why not?  Decaying inner city neighborhoods are not the place to loan money on demand deposits. It's simple prudence.  So we had to make sure that a certain share of mortgages went to "sub-prime" borrowers.

Because liberals are smart and compassionate.

And when the whole thing blew up, liberals blamed the greedy bankers.

Yes, of course the bankers were greedy.  Anyone that works close to government is greedy, because there's a lot of free stuff going on if you are smart enough and pushy enough to get in line for the handouts.

Given the financial ignorance of most people, the government's role should be to regulate the financial system to make it as simple as possible.  But that would make it harder to buy peoples' votes and hand out free stuff.

Given the financial ignorance of most people, we should reform the home mortgage business to remove the subsidies, to disabuse people of the notion that their homes are an "investment."

Given the financial ignorance of most people, we should get the government out of mortgage finance.

But the realities of legislating means that any reform of Fannie and Freddie will have to buy off the powerful special interests, in finance, in real estate, and in the liberal activist community.

Which means that the cure will probably be worse than the disease.

The real cruelty of the Liberal Century is the idea that government can be smart and intelligent -- if run by intelligent, large-minded people with the help of rational experts.

No it can't.  That's what we know now after a century.  Governing makes you dumb.  Governing makes you stupid.  Government makes you cruel.  You can take the largest-minded person in the world, but if you put them in charge of a government or a government program, they will turn out stupid.

This is not rocket science.  Government is force; politics is division.  When you put government in charge of something it will turn it into a bureaucratic monstrosity, pushing people around.  And the politicians will be figuring out how to divide people and how to buy votes with the money sloshing around in the government program.

Suppose the program turns out to be a complete mess?  How do you unwind the mess of bureaucratic rules; how do you persuade people to give up their nice little subsidies?

Exactly.  You can't.  Short of Armageddon, people are going to demand to keep their goodies.

They will keep on demanding their goodies until the invading soldiers are going house to house raping the women, and the question is no longer subsidies and handouts, but getting food to stave off starvation.

Meanwhile the mortgage mess remains a mortgage mess.  Thanks a lot, liberals.

Liberalism will end as a joke

You can't be serious.  That is perhaps what conservatives feel as each new Obama era folly hits the headlines.

This week we saw Democrats in the House claiming that the Republican pursuit of Lois Lerner was McCarthyism.

We heard of the Dallas office of the IRS brimming with pro-Obama election fever.

We saw liberal students and faculty getting Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born woman who has risen from tribalism to an icon of freedom, uninvited as Commencement speaker at Brandeis.

We saw the Obama administration ginning up their female base with yet another equal pay act.

We saw dear old baseball legend Hank Aaron linking Obama critics to the KKK.

Yeah, I know.  Marx told us that history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.

But I wonder if there is a deeper truth there.  Beyond the idea that a movement begins as a cause, then becomes a business, and finally becomes a racket, I suggest that the final phase of any human endeavor is to become the butt of jokes.

And why is that?  It is because any human institution eventually gets inherited by fools, and fools are too stupid to realize they are running the place into the ground.  And so their clumsy pretense at wisdom and cunning becomes the butt of jokes.

And one day it all goes up in smoke.

Yeah, I know.  We Obama haters are desperate for a divination from the heavens that indicates that our prayers for a life after Obama will be answered.

But somehow, I have a feeling that the next 30 months leading up to the 2014 midterm and the 2016 presidential election will see a meltdown seldom seen before in US politics.

How do we beat the secular religious thugs?

The defenestration of Brendan Eich last week electrified the conservative world.  Imagine!  A guy contributes money to an initiative campaign in 2008 and that disqualifies him from running Mozilla, the non-profit foundation that makes Firefox.

So the gay rights movement has progressed from hiding in the shadows to forcing its opponents into the shadows.  That is what you call progress.

But we conservatives ask: what can we do about this?  How can we stop the lefty bullies from bullying everyone in America to kow-tow to their household gods?

The answer, of course, is Michael Novak and his Spirit of Democratic Capitalism.  In that book Novak develops what I call the Greater Separation of Powers.  It is the idea that the public square in modern society amounts to three sectors: political, economic, and moral/cultural.

When the power of the political and the economic and the moral/cultural sectors are united, you get what is called "totalitarianism."  Not good, eh Vlad?  I mean Lenin, not Putin.

In the United States our founders built a constitution based on the concept of the separation of powers that Baron Montesquieu had formulated in his Spirit of the Laws.  The three branches of government, legislative, executive, and judicial, should be separate and should fight each other for power.

The founders also pushed the idea of the separation of the political and the moral/cultural in the notion of the separation of church and state.  They didn't want an "established" church, where the government picked winners and losers on the moral/cultural front.

You can see why.  When people on a moral crusade -- such as women's rights, or climate change, or gay rights -- get the bit between their teeth, they tend to get a little carried away.  They start to recreate the Holy Office of the Inquisition, or, if you like, the OGPU, the Gestapo, the KGB.  They start by showing people with the wrong opinions the instruments of torture, and they go on from there.

So it's a good thing to separate government power from religious power, including secular religious power.  Everyone agrees about that except liberals, because liberals cannot see that their politics is in fact a religion.  There are none so blind as those who will not see.

The Brendan Eich business was not an exercise of government power, but a moral/cultural attack on a private foundation.  So it points to the next frontier in the separation of powers.

What power should moral/cultural activists have over the economic sector?  And that reminds us of the other separation of powers issues that has been boiling over for the last century and a half.  What power should the political sector have over the economic sector?

The problem of political power over the economic sector has been a contentious one forever.  Most people fear that economic power is a monster that must be held in check by the strongest political chains, or else.  The whole point of Marxism is that economic power is to the worker what the landed warrior class of the feudal era was to the peasant.

But classical political economy starting not later than the late 18th century has argued that economic power is only powerful if it responds to the market, if it makes and sells things that people want to buy. History has proved the theory correct.  There is nothing worse for prosperity than subordinating the economic sector to the whims of the political sector.

And the late Great Recession proves the rule.  Here we had government subsidizing home mortgages for a generation and forcing the credit system to loan money to sub-prime borrowers.

Now the credit system runs on two articles of faith (i.e., credere, to believe).  First, it must believe that people will make their payments.  Second, it must believe that when people can't make payments then their loan can be liquidated by the collateral pledged to guarantee the loan.

Earth to liberals:  when you force the borrowers to lend to sub-prime borrowers and you also force lenders to make low down-payment loans, you are setting up a double-whammy of a financial panic!  Because when the downturn comes not only will subprime borrowers not be able to make their payments but their under-collaterized loans can't be properly liquidated.

So that's why Michael Novak recommends a Greater Separation of Powers.  The political sector should have limited power to lord it over the economic sector and that goes for the moral/cultural sector too.

As for the economic sector, it seems that most corporate honchos couldn't care much about political and moral/cultural matters.  Except when they go to government for crony capitalist special favors.  And when they retire and decide to spend all their money on charitable giving.

Yeah.  It's not too difficult to figure out how to get out of the mess we are in.  Just reduce the power of the politicians and the moralists.  And let the economy take care of itself.

It will, you know.  Nobody knows nothing about the economy, and the political activists and moral activists least of all.  The best thing to do it just to look on the economy with wonder.  And then cash your dividend checks.

Two Midnight Rule: What Do You Expect?

What happens when government takes over health care?  You get dozens of bureaucratic horrors like the "two midnight" rule for Medicare.  What is the two midnight rule?  It is rule CMS 1599-F.

This new, Obamacare-forced rule specified that a hospital stay can only be paid for by Medicare insurance if that stay “(1) expects the beneficiary to require a stay that crosses at least two midnights and (2) admits the beneficiary to the hospital based upon that expectation.”

In the American Spectator, Jeffrey Lord does a fine job of playing the Democratic Party helpless victims game, telling the story of one Frank Alfisi, who died because he needed to be admitted to hospital to get a kidney dialysis.  A dialysis doesn't need a two day stay, so Medicare wouldn't cover it and the hospital wouldn't perform the dialysis.  Alfisi was too sick for a regular dialysis.

So President Obama killed Frank Alfisi.

On the contrary, this is what you get when you put the government in charge of things.

This is what you get when you pretend that the government can act like a compassionate daughter, like Frank's daughter Amy.

This is what happens when you believe politicians that say that they care about people.

This is what happens when people buy health insurance and assume that it takes care of everything.

The fact is that all institutions, from government to insurance companies to hospitals, run on rules.  The rules are arbitrary.  The rules say that we will do stuff for you if you the facts say one thing, and we won't do it if they say another.

Of course our modern world is drenched in institutions like this, starting with the rule of abstract principles.  Everything is subject to the tyranny of rules and principles.

In fact, of course, life is a lot messier than the rules and the abstract principles pretend.  You see it in the assumptions of Newtonian mechanics, that it is dealing with point particles and frictionless motion.

And you see it in the assumptions of 1,000 page bills to reform the whole health care system.

There are two things that can overcome the rules.

One of them is money.  If you have the money, you can tell the hospital: screw the rules; I'll pay for the admission and the dialysis.  Unfortunately for Frank Alfisi he had already spent all his money caring for his deceased wife in her terminal illness.

The other thing is love.  You can say: I don't mind what it costs, we are going to stump up the cash for dear old Dad.

But in our degenerate age we prefer to re-enact the helpless victim as poster boy melodrama.  We ask, with TV cameras rolling, how "they" could be so heartless as to deny care to Frank or to deny coverage to Betty.  Everyone knows their role, from tough reporter to tearful relative, and plays it to perfection.

Some of the better modern thinkers have recognized the problems with the modern age of reason.  They recognize that instrumental reason is mechanical, that institutions based on modern reason act "strategically," that you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.  That something else is needed, something other than systems and bureaucracies.

The modern era has been going for about 200-500 years, depending on your taste.  It's long past time for anyone to be shocked by the heartlessness of modernity.  We should all recognize that modern governments and insurance companies and hospitals are purely "strategic" institutions.

If you don't want to fall between the cracks you need a Plan B.  Otherwise the "two midnight" rule or its close bureaucratic relative is going to get you.