The Process Does Matter

Did I hear right? Did I hear right because I don't hear well out of my right ear. But I could have sworn the Democrats say about the health care reform bill that the process doesn't matter?

I've heard this argument before when it came to defending Michael Moore "documentaries." That somehow because he had a message and needed to make Americans aware he was free to manipulate the facts and edit the living shit out of his films. Presto! My vision of the truth!

Bullshit.

The process does matter. For anything.

What is "process" anyway? Is violation of rules and facts? I think I'll go with that. Indeed, there's also a subjective angle to the "process." At some point, a person is confronted with a "well, it doesn't fit my plans" dilemma. What happens next is also important.

As for health care, I'm not sure how "socialistic" this whole thing is, but it does represent a significant increase in government intervention in the industry.

Why is an industry (insurance) that represents 4% of overall expenditures being demonized so much? Who turns down more patients: Medicare or insurance companies? Has the government demonstrated how exactly will their plan lead to "more competition?" Why did Obama tread a specious line by questioning doctor and surgeon practices?  Is he suggesting a bureaucrat get between a doctor and patient? Just how much of it is a government take over of health? Conservatives talk as if it's a fait accompli but is it?

Never mind about the constitution and all the philosophical, legal and procedural debating that comes with it. That in itself is a college class waiting to be designed.

Rhetorical question: Who is worse to deal with, insurance companies or bureaucrats? 

These are just some of the questions. It's important because if you can't pin down what the problem is - choosing instead to pick but one component of it - how can there be a meaningful solution? If I start a business and it fails. A consultant will come in analyze where I went wrong. They will determine faulty premises - which can range from poor understanding of financial statements to prejudicial beliefs - that corrupted your bottom line.

Interestingly, when you look at polling, the individual parts of the bill Americans seem to like them. On the aggregate they hate it. This makes sense than you think. It's not inconceivable individuals like parts of anything. It's all in the packaging.

I would have love to be around in the 1960s to have seen that legislation pass. Did the process get overlooked? If it did, it can go a long way to explain why Medicare costs are what they are and why targets were missed.

Moreover the narrative has shifted a few times. The administration has asserted their plan is needed, at different points, for "universal coverage" to reduce "overall costs" and  then for "deficit reduction." Now they've upped the ante by characterizing those who oppose them as "ignorant" and focusing on the insurance companies because next to bankers, insurance is the easiest target to get people riled up.

If you bend along the way by ignoring the process, then it becomes an "ends justifies the means" project and you're likely to have a confused if not corrupted outcome. Whether if it's politics or films (the two great theaters) or anything else, if you deceive to make a point because you believe you have "truth" on your side then you have nothing but bullshit.

To me, the process helps to minimize the counterfactual battling the counter-counterfactual. There's so many "that's impossible to tell" arguments being thrown around no wonder people are suspicious. Or maybe the American political process is more efficient than we think and it's working itself out. But how can one tell?

This health care thing is so surreal you have Democrats admitting it's a flawed if not terrible bill but it's better to pass and fix later.

Good luck with that down the road America.

***

The process is one of the reasons why I don't take Michale Moore seriously. Because he manipulates and edits facts to fit his visions, it's an incredibly easy thing to do to rebut his assertions. His movies will be worthless in five or ten years because they lack any substance. This thing "well, he's just trying to make people aware" angle doesn't resonate with me. He can do this, if the truth is on his side as he so believes, by being true to the process.