Presidential Leadership
I received a video this morning from the Obama campaign. A former student interviewed me about my research on the link between bankruptcy and health care, and part of the interview appears in the clip. What struck me about the video is its vision. Obama lays out the case that we need universal health care because it is right. Hard-working Americans should not be struck down financially by a broken health care system. Drugs, health insurance coverage, and cancer treatments may save lives, but cost families their financial security.
Obama is not alone in advocating for universal health care coverage, but this video reminded me how far the debate has come. While Democrats debate who will provide the best plan, most Republicans look away. Obama makes it clear in this video that health care is one middle class promise that he will tie himself to: he is willing to be judged by the quality of what he can deliver. A tough, middle class economic issue has become one of the signature pieces that defines this presidential season.
During the campaign, candidates are pushed to come up with specific plans, plans that can be criticized and picked at and shown to be less than promised. This is an important part of differentiating candidates. But the details of the plan are not what define a president. A president is a leader, and a campaign is about selecting a leader who will identify problems and pledge him/herself to find meaningful solutions.
A leader is also someone who makes the case for change. Roosevelt made the case for social security, Kennedy explained the need for technological advancement with his promise to put a man on the moon, and Nixon explained the importance of opening relations with China. They stated the terms on which Americans could shape themselves. The Obama video taps into this same leadership model. He sells the importance of national health insurance to everyone--even those who have their own insurance today.
Progressive policy wonks have been talking about health care for a long time, but less than two years ago those who understood politics better than I did said that the health care system could not be changed--it was too dangerous politically. Now the Democrats are betting that it will be dangerous to remain silent.
There are more middle class issues. Consumer credit. Paying for college. Home mortgages. Preschool. Child care. Transportation costs. Retirement security. Incomes are flat, and families are squeezed on multiple fronts.
I see signs in this presidential debate that the economic pressure on middle class families is beginning to move into the spotlight. That's leadership I like.
but this video reminded me how far the debate has come.
has it gone anywhere or are businesses just becoming comfortable with outsourcing?
and should the link be between health and wealth or health care and wealth? it seems pretty obvious to me that w/o health, it's hard to get and stay wealthy-- so no phd study needed.
To boldly go...
November 15, 2007 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Couldn't agree more, and glad to see someone really making the moral, and practical, argument for Basic Universal Health Care Insurance.
We simply can't afford and would be morally bankrupt to continue with such an inefficient HCI system burdening the economy and causing tremendous social fallout.
November 15, 2007 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: While Democrats debate who will provide the best plan, most Republicans look away.
I'm a bit surprised that the GOP has not responded to this issue, except for throwing out a few very small bones. Back in 92 when the issue had caught fire Bush-41 suggested letting the uninsured buy into Medicaid (which is somewhat similar to the idea of setting up a public plan for the unisured which the Democarts are now proposing) and a number of other GOP leaders proposed full blown reform plans (granted, the best of them were about as good as what Romney did in MA or Schwartzeneggar proposes in CA). Any idea why the GOP is ignoring the issue? Seems to me like a bad idea if they have any hopes for next year.
November 15, 2007 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"There are more middle class issues. Consumer credit. Paying for college. Home mortgages. Preschool. Child care. Transportation costs. Retirement security. Incomes are flat, and families are squeezed on multiple fronts. "
So why not just reduce their taxes instead of cobbling together a dozen different new programs that require taxes and bureaucracy?
November 16, 2007 7:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
This morning in the Times Krugman makes the point that healthcare is a more pressing economic problem than social security is.
By the way, Obama's healthcare plan is the weakest of the three top Democratic candidates, while he alone pushes the bogus social security crisis issue.
November 16, 2007 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
The rise of managed health care in the U.S. is largely responsible for what we have and it is high time we changed the game. The biggest impediment to change is the fact that the industry makes huge political contributions. No matter how you slice it there is an unspoken quid pro quo for the political support of this and other major industries. None of them want this to change because independent politicians just might act responsibly and actually represent the real America.
thepeoplechoose
November 17, 2007 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ms. Warren, a little credit where it's due. Truth is, it wouldn't be an issue at all if not for John Edwards.
He keeps bringing up these "pesky" Middle Class issues. As much as he gets made fun of for it.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
November 18, 2007 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dennis Kucinich brought it up in 2004 since he and Conyers authored the "medicare for all" bill and now Michael Moore goes around talking about it.
In 2004, Dennis was ahead of everybody else; Kerry only promised to let people buy into the congressional plan if they had no other choice. I don't remember where John Edwards was then, probably bouncing around trying to find bandwidth.
To boldly go...
November 18, 2007 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is it about Obama's plan that makes it 'weaker' than JRE's or HRC's plan?
Do you beleive that there will be fewer workers paying into SS than receiving it in the next decade or not? If so, then there is a problem and that gap needs to be addressed, whether you call that a crisis of not...Obama is offering a solution and Hillary is offering a commission to study the problem. I [prefer leadership that brings change than it being just a slogan for a politicians campaign.
November 19, 2007 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your ignorance doesn't change much.
Edwards had a pan which John Kerry adopted after he picked Edwards as a running mate. Edwards had the first complete plan on Health Care in 2004, not the first with empty rhetoric, but the first with an actual doable plan.
I like Kucinich, but Edwards has always been ahead of the curve on this.
[shrug]
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
November 20, 2007 6:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your ignorance doesn't change much.
It's not clear to me that John Edwards' plan is doable; He believes in "universal healthcare" but it looks like HillaryCare which already failed. And, unless things change, a similar plan in Massachusetts isn't getting much traction.
I disagreed with the Dean people because, like the Edwards crowd, they agreed that a single payer model was right, but they settled for junk in an effort to win-- and they didn't win. Remember Al Gore? He taught us the phrase: "politicians celebrate false victories."
I like Kucinich, but Edwards has always been ahead of the curve on this.
that's fanboy talk. Edwards was working for a hedge fund that made money off subprime Katrina loans; Of course Edwards claimed that he didn't know that but if he's that stupid, we don't need 'em as president.
As Dennis said in the debate: "don't you want a president who voted right the first time?" Edwards is a bunch of excuses.
You can blame my ignorance but Edwards won't become a better candidate because of your misplaced blame.
To boldly go...
November 20, 2007 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently the social security issue can be "debated" forever, without the most obvious facts ever being acknowledged. One fact in particular should shoot down such debates on the spot. That fact is that it will be about 30 years minimum before there might be a shortfall in SS assets vs SS obligations. Nothing that depends on Congressional action can be solved 30 years ahead of it being a problem - absolutely nothing. Even if this Congress voted to reduce SS payouts by 90%, nothing whatever keeps the next congress from increasing them by 200%. Obama is not acknowledging that only because he sees a potential gain to his campaign by pretending otherwise.
Hoppy in Sacramento
November 22, 2007 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is it about Obama's plan that makes it 'weaker' than JRE's or HRC's plan?
November 23, 2007 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have looked at all three of the major democratic candidate’s positions on health care. In using the market system to create cost containments and in mandating business participation, they are all similar. Obama does appear to have a more comprehensive and well articulated plan. What I wish the candidates would do is to consider how they can help businesses grow. His small business exemption will help innovation buy making healthcare one last thought, at least till later, for small business owner. This really is pro-economy, and pro small scale business and agribusiness. What also needs to happen is a tax break for all businesses that provide health care to their employees. We should also reward good corporate citizenship and invest in our public.
November 23, 2007 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: So why not just reduce their taxes instead of cobbling together a dozen different new programs that require taxes and bureaucracy?
Because they don't really pay that much in taxes and the only sorts of tax cuts that are feasible yield only chump change for the middle class. More over many of the problems are structural not financial and major reform is called for. You could cut a chronically ill person's taxes to 0 but that won't buy them health insurance when major insurers refuse to insure them at any price.
November 25, 2007 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Do you beleive that there will be fewer workers paying into SS than receiving it in the next decade or not?
No I don't believe that because I have never seen any poojection which suggests that there will ever be more people receiving Social Security than paying into it.
November 25, 2007 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this sort of story about Obama is why he's doing so well. He speaks from COMMON SENSE.
Coonsey's View
HTTP://WWW.FREEWEBS.COM/COONSEY/
November 28, 2007 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink