An unknown Republican–who explicitly ran against Obamacare–has won in Massachusetts! This is a hard blow for Obamacare, and an opportunity. The people want reform. I do. But they don’t want Hillarycare, squared. They don’t want centralized control with its prospects for rationing. They don’t want the debt. They loathe the back room deals.
If the president is smart, he will give a speech stating that he hears the people, and will reopen negotiations–with conservatives included. I think it would be a huge benefit for Obama, raise his polls by at least 5%, because it would return him to the theme and approach that won him election. It would also reflect the will of the American people.
Will he? Not if he is an ideologue. That’s my bet, but I hope I am wrong.
January 19th, 2010 | 10:00 pm
YES!!!!! My vote counted!!!! Go Two Party System!!!
January 20th, 2010 | 1:06 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Pro-Life Healthcare . Pro-Life Healthcare said: Obamacare: Heed the People, Mr. President http://bit.ly/53KphQ #hcr [...]
January 20th, 2010 | 11:59 am
I’m all for post-partisanship, but the Republicans have contributed nothing to the health care effort but obstructionism and poison pill amendments. When pressed to produce their own plan, it consisted of two words: tax cuts. How fresh and original.
Extending health care to groups that are politically disenfranchised, essentially the working poor, is never going to bring political benefits to those who back it. Look at Lyndon Johnson extending civil rights; what was his reward? More or less run out of office. You think many Republicans are going to risk that route? Tough enough to get the Democrats to sign on.
An interesting side note is that there are subgroups of Democrats trying to look like they’re backing the bill while undermining it, and Republicans who want it to pass without them being blamed for it. Interesting writeup on this by Lawrence O’Donnell at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/will-scott-brown-ruin-rep_b_426604.html
If O’Donnell’s correct, this whole sham 60-vote rule is out the window and the Massachusetts election doesn’t mean that much.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 20th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Well, O’Donnell is rarely right. Beyond that, the strategy of the POTUS was to pick off a Republican here and there while pushing through a radical remake instead of focusing on needed reform. If they are able to force this through, the peasants will really revolt next November. You know, it is really dumb to stick your finger repeatedly in the voter’s collective eye.
January 20th, 2010 | 12:41 pm
Padraig:
I think it’s fairer to say that LBJ was chased out of office because, between the Great Society and Vietnam, he managed to alienate everybody. And I think that Vietnam was the bigger of the two reasons.
I’m actually with you that Republicans aren’t putting up much in the way of good healthcare reform proposals at the moment, but why should that stop Democrats, Tea Partiers and the rest of us from looking for better ideas? Myself, I think the key thing that needs to happen is divorcing health insurance from employment. Create a robust individual market and a lot of problems will solve themselves.
January 20th, 2010 | 3:35 pm
“Well, O’Donnell is rarely right.”
Some reason you don’t want to address what he actually wrote, rather than just attacking the source? It was a fairly factual article.
At any rate, the key point remains: the Republicans scream “Partisan!” whenever the Democrats don’t give in to their every demand, then vote as a bloc virtually every time. “Dissenting Republican” is an oxymoron.
And btw, Massachusetts is not America. If it is now, then it was when it elected Ted Kennedy umpteen times in a row. One special election does not a trend make.
January 20th, 2010 | 6:16 pm
“One special election does not a trend make.”
Yes, but three in three months is certainly the start of a trend, especially when you’re talking about two of the more/most Democratic states in the union. But this is more about incumbents than Repubs being fashionable again, so they can’t get complacent either.
If the Dems had decided early on to address health care in pieces (run away costs, emerency room as primary care physician, pre-existing conditions, revoking the anti-trust laws protecting insurance companies, tort reform, etc), rather than trying to remake the whole system in their own image, they would have something to show for their efforts one year later. (You could even say 3 years later, since Nancy has been in power since 2006). Ironically, this is how Ted Kennedy worked for so long…incrementally. Hopefully the Repubs don’t dance for too long and start reaching across the isle to craft policy to this end. (and if they do, hopefully the Dems engage them).
January 20th, 2010 | 9:10 pm
Why should healthcare be centralized? Republican or Democrat there are other ways for the government to be involved than a complete takeover. Perhaps a good beginning would be a campaign on preventing unhealthy behaviors, individual responsibilities, incentives to promote being active and healthy etc…
January 20th, 2010 | 9:20 pm
Jon, the Republicans had the presidency and the House and Senate for 8 years and didn’t do jack about this. They blocked the Clintons from doing anything and they’re blocking Obama and both houses of Congress from doing anything, while proposing no serious options of their own. That’s not incremental progress, that’s a blockade.
If you seriously think Republicans are going to craft any policy that does not directly benefit them or their backers, i.e., any kind of health care, I hope you’re not holding your breath.
January 20th, 2010 | 10:10 pm
Padraig, of course you are right about the recent Republicans history, but that doesn’t change the fact that the liberal Dems overreached with both Hillarycare and Obamacare. It wasn’t just the Republicans who have stymied this bill, but the conservative Dems who gave the Democratic party their recent huge majority. If they hadn’t been delusioned by their supposed “mandate” following the 2008 election, they would have recognized the actual makeup of their own party and taken the incremental approach. It would have been much easier to force Repubs hands when faced with a bill that focuses on something like pre-existing condition discrimination, don’t you think? Much easier to explain to the public, and harder for opponents to obfuscate.
And anyone who is fool enough to hold their breath for either party deserves the headache. The two parties are more similar than you think (you don’t think the Dems were working behind closed doors with the insurance companies because they were coming down hard on them, do you?). Both parties are beholden to powerful special interests, and that’s why incumbents from both machines are now worried about the seats they hold.
January 20th, 2010 | 11:05 pm
They didn’t do jack because they were afraid of being demonized. That’s why many Republicans today are either spineless jellyfish or mini-Democrats. Their solutions are already objected to a priori by the media and liberals, so why complain that they haven’t offered any?
Really, there is no way to “reform” health care, as if it is broken. With medical advances coming monthly and weekly, costlier treatments mean more costs. Medical treatments can cost a lot, but treatment options are tremendously greater today for this society than any in history, even 50 years ago. That’s progress. Not saying it’s perfect, not saying it has no room to improve, but radicalizing any sector of the economy won’t fix it because their will never be a perfect system. Jon makes a great point about incrementalism, if you want to try to improve the medical sector, start with baby steps, not pride that it can all be solved with one magic bill.
January 20th, 2010 | 11:16 pm
And how shall we improve the health care system in America? Notice that we don’t need to improve the system for distributing cabbage, cars, or cosmetics. The reason is that price signals the supply and demand, and balances the two. Unless we can eliminate the law of supply and demand by legislative fiat–and we can’t–there will be dearths, high prices, unsatisfactory distribution, queues, and dissatisfaction so long as people do not buy a larger portion of their own health care.
January 21st, 2010 | 10:10 am
Incrementalism, like W’s prescription meds bill? That REDUCED free market competition? And confused the bejeezus out of senior citizens by essentially making them guess what prescriptions they might need in the next two years?
JustMichigan, first, fix your channel changer so you can watch something other than Fox News.
Second, the problem is not our quality of health care, it’s who pays for it, and who has access to it. The improvements in medical treatment you mentioned are largely due to massive federal investment in medical research and development. That is largely independent of Medicare and “Obamacare.” We have great cures that don’t get to the people who need them because of no coverage or denial of coverage in our current system.
Cole, cabbages and cars go by free enterprise only? You don’t know about farm subsidies? You didn’t hear about the auto manufacturer buyout?
January 21st, 2010 | 11:02 am
padraig: I’m glad to see I’m not the only person who visits this Republican website (Wesley will disagree and claim it’s “non-partisan,” which is good for a laugh )who thinks the Congressional GOP are a bunch of worthless, hypocritical obstructionists.
January 21st, 2010 | 12:30 pm
Padraig,
Enough with the strawmen; your resorting to partisanism is tiresome.
To answer your question: No, incrementalism along the lines that I provided above. But do you honestly think that the 2000+ page tome sitting in the House and Senate won’t be confusing to most citizens? The only people who have a good understanding of the current bill are the lobbyists that helped write it. Corner most legislators and ask about the specifics of the bill (either bill) and they’ll hem and haw. You don’t see how that causes some consternation among the people?
So if incrementalism won’t work in your mind, please enlighten me on your politically viable idea. Because as we’ve seen, attempts to overhaul the whole system seem to have worked out really well to date, haven’t they?
January 21st, 2010 | 2:22 pm
Jon, a straw man argument is when you create an argument and attribute it to a non-existent person so you can knock it down (hence the term “straw man”). If you think I was unfair to Republican legislators by referring to them as a group, tell them to stop thinking and voting as a group. If that’s not what you were referring to, then I don’t know what you meant.
I have no particular allegiance to any party. I think members of both parties are far too beholden to their party leadership and not enough to the people they represent.
Incrementalism could work if it had an overarching philosophy or objective in mind, and if the people involved actually wanted it to succeed. In reality, those calling for incremental change seems to be more about stalling reform indefinitely.
It’s a variation on NIMBY. We want change, but not today. And not if it costs anything.
And no idea is politically viable when you have an entire bloc of legislators using every means at their disposal to thwart the will of the majority. They may as well be singing the old Groucho song, “Whatever it is, I’m against it.”
January 21st, 2010 | 5:51 pm
Padraig, I appreciate the back and forth (though perhaps others are tired of it by now). I disagree with your definition of a straw man. The straw man fallacy simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. You stated:
“Incrementalism, like W’s prescription meds bill?”
I never argued the above, but you constructed it as an example to characterize my argument. There’s your straw man.
I gave what I believe are some of the major problems with our health care system in an earlier post that can and should be addressed on their own (where they can anyway…no doubt there would be some overlap). Any smart, honest legislator can take on any one of these issues and with help craft a viable bill. But as is usually the case, legislators (both Dem and Repub) typically feel the need to construct massive and complex bills that do less for your average citizen and do more for the organizations lining their pockets. Most of these people are more concerned with the power or legacy they leave behind than the people they represent. I think this summer has been fairly instructive for the citizenry as more light has been shown on the process.
And it’s not that I think your characterization of the Repubs is unfair (I mentioned earlier, it is true enough), but it is unproductive. Yes the Repubs are more or less against both versions of the bill. This shouldn’t be surprising considering the overreach involved, as even conservative Democrats have serious reservations about the cost and even constitutionality. (E.g., now it’s ok for the federal government to force every single tax-paying citizen [save the Amish] to buy one of a set number of plans? What industry would be against this? Like car insurance, this should be handled at the state level.) Heck, even a liberal like Anthony Weiner recognizes the majority of Americans are not on board with this.
If incrementalism truly = stall tactics, then you are right, nothing will get passed. I am not so cynical, though.
January 21st, 2010 | 6:28 pm
FIRE THEM ALL AND GET SOME PEOPLE WHO WILL GET THE JOB DONE FOR THE RIGHT REASONS! ARE WE THE PEOPLE OR ARE WE NOT? I AM TIRED OF HEARING THIS BICKERING!
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Another word for bickering, Wils, is democracy. It’s never pretty but usually works out in the end.
January 21st, 2010 | 8:26 pm
‘“Incrementalism, like W’s prescription meds bill?”
I never argued the above, but you constructed it as an example to characterize my argument. There’s your straw man. ‘
I asked if that was what you meant by incremental health care reform. I only offered that one because it was the only example I could think of where the Republicans did anything regarding health care. Sorry I didn’t wait for your response before slamming it.
If you have a better example of Republican health care reforms that they’ve done, or anything they’re currently proposing, I’m listening.
January 21st, 2010 | 9:27 pm
Thanks Mr. Smith, I am still young, naive , solution oriented, and in the dream stage. In fact I just got involved not too long ago with all of the ‘bickering’…uh I mean democracy. The hard part for me is I didn’t start any of this , yet I am responsibly and conscientiously involved. I have not asked the right questions yet, apparently.
….I still say FIRE ‘EM if they are not doing the job they were voted/promised to do(R or D) .
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Well, I’m old and naive. But I don’t remember a time without profound contest since Vietnam. And look at the 19th Century, particularly how Lincoln was treated. Jefferson hired a write to write salcious things about Hamiliton, and when he didn’t pay the writer, the mercenary turned on Jefferson about the Sally Hemmings matter. It’s all part of it. But there is a difference between hitting hard and hitting overly personal. I think you will see the former here, for example, but I don’t permit the latter.
January 21st, 2010 | 10:02 pm
Padraig, I know the posts are adding up, but I can’t remember arguing that anything the Repubs have done in the past on health care represents incrementalism (or that I agreed with anything they’ve done in the past on this issue). This seems to be your hangup. But I suppose if you wanted to look up what the Repubs have in mind you could do a quick search (like I just did) and find:
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare
I haven’t looked through it, and I’m sure it’s riddled with problems (like what’s currently on the floors of both houses), but it speaks to your charge that they have yet to offer any ideas.
Again, all this gets away from the ideas that I offered above. I say these numbskulls take on any of the following issues and we’ll have made progress in this area. Moreover, they’d be easier to frame/argue individually, and put the heat on those who’d like to see no progress (the Repubs in your mind). In no particular order:
1. pre-existing condition discrimination
2. coverage for all children
3. anti-trust laws protecting insurance companies (what are they, the NFL? break down the state line monopolies for better competition)
4. tort reform
5. emergency room as a primary care physician
And of course there are others, but these would be the ones I focused on. Again, offering ideas for solutions (I am not expert). Perhaps you could add to this, prioritize, or offer a better comprehensive solution.
January 22nd, 2010 | 2:35 pm
Jon, sorry I held you responsible for any Republican action, or lack of it. I know I’d hate it if anyone did that to me. ;)
We’re actually largely in agreement on reforms needed. Obamacare definitely took aim at no.’s 1 and 3 on your list. I would maybe add “divorce health care from employment status.” Some of the worst horror stories I’ve heard were about people with long-term non-fatal conditions who lost their insurance when they needed it the most.
I’ll confess I lost interest in the GOP’s alleged alternative the second they used the “funded by tax cuts” line. I used to think I understood Republicans, they’d cut social spending but balance the budget. Now no deficit is too big. I really don’t get it. (Not that I understand Democrats all that much better, other than their similarity to my Irish brethren — talented people with a disturbing tendency to shoot themselves in the foot at the worst possible times.)
I’m still dubious about the incremental approach for a lot of reasons, mostly:
1) Lack of consistent vision
2) Ease of rescinding small pieces when/if Republicans regain majority
3) Interdependency of the pieces limits effectiveness of piecemeal approach
4) And of course, the use of incrementalism as a stalling tactic.
It’s hard to propose a comprehensive solution because all of them provoke a “SINGLE-PAYER! CANADA! ENGLAND!” reaction from the neo-cons. However, I have suggested and have heard elsewhere that we could expand Medicare to include anyone (American citizen in good standing, that is) that does not have insurance from other sources. That would be a stroke of the pen solution that Obama could accomplish via executive order. Of course, then he’d have to pay for it… Not holding my breath on that one.
January 29th, 2010 | 12:04 pm
[...] a shame. When Senator Elect Scott Brown won the Massachusetts special election, I saw it is a real political and policy opportunity for President Obama. He could jettison the current disastrous bills and retool–focusing on what is actually [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact