« Is it possible to have a reasonable health care discussion? | theCleverBulldog's Blog | A death panel by any name »
Karl Rove now working for Obama!
It must be true. The 'Architect' of the Bush administrations many successes is now working for Team Obama. How else can you explain the uncanny similarity between Bush's Social Security Privatization effort and Obama's Health Care Reform Plan? Bush, coming off the 2004 re-election high, launched his signature plan - by proposing nothing but vague ideas and hoping Congress would write the rest while he tried to sell the idea to everyone. Of course, he found it hard to sell something that didn't exist - there was no definitive bill ever written, so no one had anything they could support, and plenty to argue against. Obama is now following that same brilliant strategy - let Pelosi and Reid decide what is in the plan, aided by 533 other 'helpers' in Congress who can propose all sorts of things. Obama will just sell us on the idea, and tell us not to worry about the details. You can keep your own doctor (unless the rules in one house bill are adopted, then no you can't), you can keep your own insurance (once again, unless...). Surprisingly, the public is reacting the same as they did to Bush's half thought out plan - with indifference or outright hostility. Cleverly, the democrats addressed this issue by calling people 'the mob', and 'Un-American' , and calling in their union goons to silence any opposition, specifically telling them to 'get in their faces' and 'punch back twice as hard'. This was spectacularly well received by the public, much like the fantastic idea of setting up a hot line to report your neighbors who speak out against Obamacare. Yes, nothing wins over people quite like calling them un-American and calling for them to be reported to the secret health care police. Clearly Karl is doing a 'heckuva job' for Obama!
Advertisement
This is an odd way to construct a piece of criticism I actually agree with. Obama missed a huge opportunity to have a much larger discussion and his reliance on the democratic Congress was exceedingly naive. I would like to offer a couple of facts to go with your concerns, though.
The House bills are always going to be more reflective of the majority's base than the Senate bills. When the final legislation comes out of conference committee, I hope you will at least take the time to read it and see what it is actually calling for.
I would suggest you also condemn the republican caucus for failing to provide substantive debate on this issue. The GOP leadership has yet to offer a smart, conservative counter-proposal that addresses the numerous systemic issues with the health care system? They have been largely absent except from legislative process in the House, but seem to have plenty of time to stand in front of the TV cameras.
At least a couple Senate republicans appear to care enough to work with moderate democrats to craft something that is not even close to what we really need, but should at least start us down the road to stability. The fact remains that whatever legislation emerges for the president's signature, it is unlikely to be super liberal or super conservative. The bill is likely to approach the problem from the middle and apply as light as pressure as is needed to get the job done or at least change the paradigm enough to pursue additional reforms in the future.
Barack may be very progressive in where he would see the country go, but he is much more Teddy Roosevelt than Teddy Kennedy.
August 12, 2009 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't expect me to defend the Republicans in Congress, I think they are largely idiots. Just not as idiotic as Pelosi for the most part.
They should be proposing a free market alternative that relies on a number of government rules/restrictions to fix the current problems. I think it should be mandated that if you are covered under one plan, you must be accepted by any provider offering a similar plan at the same rate they charge other participants. Losing your job should not cut you out of the system, nor should getting sick be a justification for canceling coverage. Require portability, require coverage for pre-existing conditions if you were currently covered, and require everyone to get some for of coverage (like auto insurance is required).
I don't support the gov't control of what is covered, because that makes it a lobbying game (like in the states that do this and have required hair transplants and drug counseling to be covered - this just jacks up the cost for everyone, if you want the hair transplant option, you should pay for it)
August 12, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the measured reply. We are in agreement on this issue.
I would suggest you take a look at the Senate proposals coming out of the finance committee. Most of the changes in those bills modify the existing system in a way you appear to support given your comments. The House bill includes some odd items, true, but it is actually much closer to what you think we should do than the caricature of the legislation currently making the right wing media rounds.
The government will have no more control over the delivery and management of the health care system than it currently enjoys, with the exception of the regulatory enforcement we all agree is desperately needed to fix some of the more glaring problems.
I went back and looked at what Obama promised during the campaign. As far as I can tell he is trying to get a bill that does that, using moderate republicans in the committee process to ensure the solution is both pragmatic and measured.
August 12, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
My concerns here are not partisan or purely academic. My brother suffers from a heart condition that likely would have killed him under a plan like Canada's where wait times are astronomical. He also faces the problems of portability and pre-existing conditions excluding him from coverage. I want the best of all solutions, top quality care with no waiting and no fear of losing coverage or being denied treatment. I think the market with a LITTLE gov't involvement can achieve that. Then there is the issue of PRICE, which again can be helped by gov't shielding doctors and drug companies from lawsuits. If you want more research into new drugs, then shield the new drugs from lawsuits provided there was no fraud in the application process. Right now it's safer and more profitable to just re-hash old drugs to keep them on patent.
August 12, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. I have two parents on Medicare who can't survive if the system implodes through mismanagement or unrealistic expectations given their people who are using the system.
What I would have loved to see was Medicare reformed as the "public option" to make it more sustainable by allowing a more diverse population to sign up for it and pay the premiums, perhaps as a percentage of taxable income or something. I think that would have fixed the biggest hole in the current system, which is a group experience that is weighted toward our sickest citizens.
Allow small business owners or the self employed to buy in and that changes those numbers dramatically without really costing anything more. In fact, it would bring in more revenue and lower costs.
The FDA is just a wreck. Many drug companies are using publicly-funded research to make billions without paying any royalties to We The People for our initial largess. I think that is another place where we could moderate the influence of big pharma in a negative way by making them focus on innovation instead of advertising.
What I don't understand is how the democratic party could be so inept at selling their proposals given such a receptive audience for what they propose. Wait. Scratch that. The democratic party's inability to evolve past its myopic fascination with past progress to the detriment of their stated goals is why I became a republican when I decided being an independent is a cop-out in a two party system.
The GOP may have done some crazy shit over the last forty years given where the party originated, but they have been super effective. Now we just need to get that ability to get things done focused on doing things that will make the country better rather than on fringe ideology that does nothing but make America weaker.
Good conversation. I think more of these might lead us to a solution that is actually workable and pragmatic without tearing the existing system apart as a way to fix it. It's like advocating a heart and lung transplant when diet and exercise might fix the symptoms.
August 12, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason:
You present some interesting ideas here. Such as, "What I would have loved to see was Medicare reformed as the "public option" to make it more sustainable by allowing a more diverse population to sign up for it and pay the premiums,..."
I feel that much of the reason for why Democrats are so much less effective than are Republicans at pursuing their goals is because Democrats are, generally speaking, much more process oriented than goal oriented. They're more means oriented than ends oriented. This leaves Dems. worried too much, IMO, about collegiality and the appearance of being reasonable and fair.
Appearing reasonable and fair would seem to be laudable objectives, except, that focusing on them often leaves Democrats landing short of their stated legislative goals. In one sense, Dems. do, indeed, achieve their goals, because their goals too often are collegiality and the appearance of being reasonable and fair.
August 12, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
They pursue such a strategy at the expense of being effective as well.
I think where the democratic party has missed its opportunities is by neglecting to craft initial proposals that don't need to be watered down to be sold to moderate conservatives.
As this conversation with TCB shows, there are hearts and minds waiting to be won over by logic if the democratic party could only figure out a way to position their ideas properly.
August 12, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, it is foolish to insist on scrapping everything and starting over when all that is required is a few changes. If the issues are price, availability of coverage, and portability, address those. A gandiose gov't solution is more likely to exchange one set of problems for another. I can't understand why dems don't fathom the fear of the rationing argument. In a country dominated by the elderly, any argument about who is deserving of treatment based on life expectancy is a loser from the start. The dems lost this issue as soon as that became a topic of discussion.
August 12, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. The democratic party has done a horrible job responding to legitimate concerns by lumping them in with the crazy ones. They are losing the message game against a bunch of ideologues. This shit should sell itself.
August 12, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
DOG WROTE: "Cleverly, the democrats addressed this issue by calling people 'the mob', and 'Un-American' , and calling in their union goons to silence any opposition..."
Yes, those vocally opposed to HCR are defamed by being called "the mob", and "Un-American", but those in support are, somehow, not defamed when you call them "union goons".
DOG WROTE: "Yes, nothing wins over people quite like calling them un-American and calling for them to be reported to the secret health care police."
Which also must explain how Bush and the right won over so many moderates and Democrats these past 8-years, huh?
August 12, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, a private citizen, referring to large, hulking, members of the pipefitters union as 'goons' because they blocked the door and prevented opponents from entering the Tampa meeting did not 'defame' them to the extent that The Speaker of The House of Representatives and The Majority Leader of The US Senate defamed elderly voters who wanted to be heard.
Bush, idiot that he was, at least had the good sense not to establish a WhiteHouse snitch line, and the fact that Bush won over so few moderates is why the Repubs are out of power. You seem eager to have the dems follow them.
August 12, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
DOG WROTE: "Bush, idiot that he was, at least had the good sense not to establish a White House snitch line..."
No, as that would have been too above board. Instead, Bush had the NSA do his snooping and snitching.
August 12, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink