I won’t pretend to understand the issue completely (I got bored and stopped following it closely a long time ago). But if the summaries are correct, (and the CBO is accurate, which seems reasonable), we’ll get a moderate reduction in the deficit, some new taxes for the rich and people who use tanning salons, some decent subsidy expansions for low-income people, and some mild tweaks to medicaid and medicare. All quite undramatic, really.

All of which makes the protests quite bewildering.

However you look at it, this is not a new health care system. It’s certainly not a single-payer universal coverage system. It’s not going to allow the government to regulate the industry tightly, and it’s not abolishing medicare/caid.

For that matter, the bill barely even falls under the reform category. I daresay what most feminists wanted (behind expanded reproductive coverage, which we couldn’t possibly have gotten) was to ensure that single mothers, children, etc. were guaranteed health care – we didn’t really even get that. The improvements we did get still filtersthrough the current (read, insanely complicated) system, which is doing a mediocre job at best. Hardly a dramatic victory.

Is it better? Probably. Will it hurt anybody? Probably not. And yet, the protests continue – “the worst piece of legislation ever presented to Congress!” as one radio program I overheard recently trumpeted.

I know a young man – twenty-something years old – who is the stereotype of the teabagger. He’s white, decently educated, from a middle class background, rather (if unconsciously) racist, slightly sexist (openly), and republican as they come. He hates health care reform. Thinks it’s going to give medicine to all the damn illegals (what a tragedy….) And everyone else needs to earn their own health care, dammit!

Except – he doesn’t have insurance worth speaking of. He doesn’t make much, his employer doesn’t provide a decent plan. And if his girlfriend gets pregnant, she be in the system with the rest of them. All of which seems entirely lost on the man in question.

This doesn’t prove anything, of course, but I suspect that there are thousands more just like that. They’re protesting, not because the health care reform will actually hurt them, or the economy, or anything else, but just to be protesting – their lack of continued dominance over society, perhaps. Or simple racism, sexism, obsession with traditional family values. Something.

I’m not sure what, exactly (general fear – probably). But it’s very strange, and rather frightening.

(Crossposted at Fourth Wave Feminism)

According to the latest statistics, due to men being laid off at higher rates women now make up almost 50% of the workforce. (Thanks to Girl w/ Pen ) Now, as the Gw/P post pointed out, this is not necessarily a good thing, either for women or society as a whole.

But I do think that something very interesting could happen here. While much of the reason for this gender-unequal decrease is due to an overall decrease in male-dominated sectors (construction, etc.), there are many, many jobs being lost in other areas. Now, we know that women are paid much less on average than men. Furthermore, this pay inequality is not only caused by a larger percentage of men having jobs in higher paying fields, rather, the inequality holds true in almost every field (PDF).

If an employer is forced to lay someone off out of several who hold similar jobs, who are they going to choose – the higher paid person or the lower? Given similar work output (which is reasonable, I believe), most employers should choose the higher paid worker, who is statistically more likely to be male. This, will lead to a decrease in the gendered pay gap, at least temporarily.

The real test will come when the economy improves, pay rises, and unemployment drops. Will the men who were let go for having higher salaries be hired back at similar salaries to the women who remained? Will women’s salaries be raised? (increased relative seniority, etc.) In other words, whereas historically women have been entering, at a lower wage, into a male-dominated workforce, at some future point significant numbers of men might be entering into a (slightly) female-dominated workforce. I’m certain pay won’t become equal overnight, but hopefully things will improve.

On the other hand, non-whites are being disproportionately affected by rising unemployment. I’m not sure what the causes are, but I imagine it’s related to social inequalities. So, it comes down to: a (potential) step forward, and an (immediate) step back.

(Crossposted at Fourth Wave Feminism)

So in reference to the election, I think that voting for a candidate based on their economic policy is pointless at best, and idiotic at worst. The same things are going to happen, regardless. Instead, vote for the candidate with whom you agree on social, foreign, energy, or any other criteria, because the economy is an enormous, long term mess.

I’m actually quite happy with this result. The plan, while improved over the initial version, was still stupid and pointless. As long as we’re going to try and run a capitalistic economy, we need to let bankrupt businesses go, well, bankrupt!

But what about the people affected, and all the lost jobs?

Help them directly. It would be many times more efficient than trying to keep failing businesses afloat.

Besides, the US has ruled the world for too long. We need a letdown to keep things fair.

I want to write more about this, but I’m too tired. More tomorrow.

Update: The Woman Rebel has some great reasons as to why the bailout plan was bad.