Ezra Klein makes a persuasive case that they need to deliver health care reform for the party's survival, and thus their own electoral fortunes:
Minnick represents Idaho's 1st District. He took office in 2008, after squeaking by the Republican with 50.6 percent of the vote. According to The Washington Post's vote tracker, he's the least reliable Democrat in Congress, voting with his party a mere 65 percent of the time. The question is, what should Minnick do?The place to start, it seems, is to ask how Minnick won. And there the story is clear: He was carried in on the Democratic wave that washed through Congress in 2006 and 2008. His district is heavily Republican. But disgust with the Republican Party let him eke out a win in 2008. Minnick, however, is exactly the sort of marginal congressman who is likely to be turned out of office if voters turn against the Democrats. And they will do that if the tide turns against major Democratic initiatives and health-care reform fails and Barack Obama begins to seem less popular and Democrats like Minnick begin to distance themselves from the party.
Minnick is thus in a tricky position: His district will always be more conservative than the Democratic Party. But he needs them to not hate the Democratic Party so totally that they will vote for any Republican who runs against the specter of Obamacare. He needs, in other words, for Democrats to be successful even as he appears independent of them.
There's another former congressman who was frequently associated with the centrists and who learned this lesson rather well. Before Rahm Emanuel was Barack Obama's chief of staff, he was in Congress trying to get guys like Minnick elected. In September of 2007, he gave an interview to Politico on the lessons he learned from 1994. "You've got to have a plan for universal coverage," Emanuel said. "But you also have to have some product at the end of the process you can deliver." You may not win, in other words. But you cannot fail to pass a bill.
Emanuel has carried that lesson with him into the Obama White House. "The only thing that's not negotiable is success," he likes to say. The worst outcome for the party -- in part because it's the worst outcome for its marginal members -- is defeat. Voters punish defeat. That's what happened to Minnick's Democratic predecessor in Idaho's First District, Larry LaRocco. LaRocco captured the seat in 1990 only to lose it in 1994, the last time Democrats failed to sign a health-care reform bill. It's possible, of course, that LaRocco would have lost his seat with or without health-care reform. But it's evidence that a bill not passing was not a great outcome for Idaho's lonely Democratic congressman. If you're a centrist in a district that doesn't like Democrats and events turn your constituents further against your party, your odds of survival are very poor.
Ezra may be right. But I'm not sure. For one thing, this assumes that everyone in Minnick's district admires the Democrats for passing national health care. But let me propose a couple of alternative scenarios. One is that basically center-right districts elect Democrats because the Republicans did things they didn't like: raising taxes, raising spending, getting into costly wars in the Middle East that don't go so well. When a national health care program passes, this reminds them that delivering a gigantic raspberry to the GOP has a price. Another is that the health care plan passes, the mid-session budget review delivers the bad news that we're missing a few more percent of GDP, Republicans start running effective ads in your district about hog-wild Democratic spending. Maybe five years down the road everyone in your district is won over, but meanwhile, you, Congressman Minnick, are back to hawking shrubbery at the SummerWinds Garden Centers.
These are not precisely unlikely scenarios in the heavily Republican 1st Idaho. Congressman Minnick might well be better off distancing himself from his party and trying to ride the incumbents advantage into a second term. Best case scenario might be that your party doesn't do anything to piss the voters off; second best is that they do, but you vote against it. Neither bodes well for the bill.
That doesn't mean that Obama won't pass something. I am pretty sure that something called "health care reform" will go through Congress and be signed. But I am increasingly sure that it will be a very bad bill--larded with pork and inefficiency in order to bribe districts like Walt Minnick's into keeping him in office.
Minnick was elected because he faced Bill Sali in the GE. Sali, as you may or may not know, is so nutty that he gives Michele Bachmann a run for her money. Health Care can pass without Minnick, so I am not sure what the point is. The real block to health care are people like Max Baucus.
Calvin is spot on here. There was a lot of positions that Minnick took that I didn't like, but he wasn't Bill Sali. That was the deciding factor for me.
makes a persuasive case that they need to deliver health care reform for the party's survival, and thus their own electoral fortunes
THIS is what pisses me off the most. Who gives two shits about some political party's survival? I care about my family's survival, my friends' survival, MY survival. If I wanted to be sacrificed for the survival of a political party, I would have stayed in the Soviet Union.
America thinks these bastards can run health care? I have a very nice bridge in a formerly desirable city to sell them. Line up, wide-eyed innocents, line up.
Megan,
I find it ironic that people like Erza Klein, who are ardent supporters of the "hope and change" meme which promised a broader base of bipartisan spirit, can quote and know the spirit of Rahm Emanuel, what his position in the white house would be, and somehow believe that the Obama administration is and was ever going to be anything other than very partisan.
That is about as naked a quote (Klein's) in support of "party at all costs" as I've read recently, and that's saying something.
What ever happened to putting country ahead of politics?
Joe
P.s. No, I don't believe there will be any health reform bill signed before the august recess. The current bill is in shambles and I don't think they have the time, inclination, or votes to come up with any alternatives. On top of that, people like Axelrod are out there making excuses for why Obama demanded a bill by the August recess...and why that timeline was just a farce to force congress to act.
Of coruse, those arguments by Axelrod and other administration balloon floaters very much so ignore the quotes from Obama and others that economic recovery cannot happen without healthcare reform.
If that were accurate, then the august timeline wouldn't be a farce, would it?
I find it ironic that people like Ezra Klein, who are ardent supporters of the "hope and change" meme which promised a broader base of bipartisan spirit, can quote and know the spirit of Rahm Emanuel, what his position in the white house would be, and somehow believe that the Obama administration is and was ever going to be anything other than very partisan.
Ezra knows a lot more about Rahmbo then you do. Do you even know what kind of candidates rahm recruited when he was the head of the DCCC? He did his best to recruit DINO's. I know that doesn't fit into your cute little narrative but it is true. Can you tell me how Rahm is hyper-partisan? I'd love to hear some examples.
Hey Calvin,
You know what, you are right. I'm going to rephrase what I said, because it gives the wrong impression.
Rahm is hyper-democratic in that he focuses on ensuring the democratic party maintains a majority. His stated goals and actions focus on that. And he will recruit DINOs, hawks, blue dogs, and whatever other moniker you want to give to those individuals who hold views generally averse to the beliefs of the overall democratic party positions.
His voting record is 100% pro-choice and very anti-gun. He has an extremely combative personality and frequently attacks his perceived opponents, both republican and democrat (though rarely anyone other than center-left democrats).
He is not a hyper-partisan like Harry Reid, per se, but the attack dog image fits.
He's not a "lets all gather round, discuss our differences, and figure out how to work together" type of guy. His style is more bull-in-china-shop.
Sometimes you need that, too. But it's not necessarily a good sign when the chief of staff of a "hope and change" administration is the attack dog.
The party in power doesn't often get to pass big legislation because it gets too much attention. But it gets lots of influence over the details of the necessary stuff that does pass. E.g., Republicans can't get ANWR done, but they get lots of other environmental changes through. Democrats may not get national health care or abortion funding for the poor, but they might be able to kill Medicare Advantage or get a bigger budget for SCHIP.
I'm always amazed at the delusional ability of politicians. If I were Minnick I'd know my election was a fluke of timing and I'm a one term member. I get to ignore politics and vote every measure on my assesment of it's merits. Why not just announce you're not going to run for reelection and do what you think is right?
Megan- this post was really interesting in a couple ways.
First, you capture the political dynamic that is hamstringing Obama right now: sure, there are a lot of legislators with a "D" next to their name are in office, but politically, many are in ways only slightly less conservative than the "Rs" they replaced.
Obama has moved well to the left of his general election campaign --did he really assume everyone with a D next to their name would happily come along with him?
Second: another window into the mind of Ezra Klein. He actually thinks that Dems gained control of government because voters want more government control and spending (with the deficits to match).
Dems gained control because Republicans proved untrustworthy: they became big spenders after campaigning on the opposite.
As even Obama has noted, the current legislation has little to nothing addressing health care reform. Therefore, it seems to me that it is next to impossible to pass anything about health care reform. What the Congress Dems will continue to do is conflate reform and expansion so they can pass a universal health care plan now.
That "centrist" Rahm Emanuel is just another one of the delusions that swim through Klein's head on a regular basis it seems.
Congressmen Minnick's only hope of surviving long-term in his office is to vote in a way that pleases a solid majority of his constituents. A successful Democratic agenda, if it is too far left for the majority of that district, will doom him more readily than an unsuccessful one that he actively opposed. In addition, people like Klein seem have the hilarious belief that Democrat Congressmen from districts like ID-1 are voting against their own political beliefs when they oppose things like Cap and Trade and Healthcare Reform. Having watch such congresspersons from both parties for over 20 years, it is clear that they represent such districts because they are fairly representative of the majority constituency, regardless of party affiliation.
Nobody is reforming health care, so of course it's falling apart.
Obama wants to reduce what he calls unnecessary health care. That's not reform. That's cutting people off from their doctors.
He wants to pay for it by requiring people to buy insurance from his friends and donors. That's not reform. That's just a tax increase.
And, he wants to do it in a way that exempts Muslims from the tax, so that it becomes a tax on Jews.
That's not reform. That's illegal taxation.
So yes, of course he's failing.
Huh? A Jew tax?!?!? Can you please explain?
Yes, allow me to explain:
You see, in Massachusetts, we already have Obamacare. The state of Massachusetts forces all Jews to buy health insurance. Muslims are specifically exempted from this tax.
If you want to avoid the tax, then you just have to declare on your tax return that you're a Muslim; and voila ... you get a $275.00 tax credit.
That's the Jew tax. If you're a Jew, you pay the tax. If you're not a Jew, you don't pay the tax.
"The only thing that's not negotiable is success." where was this attitude when we were (and still are) fighting in Iraq?
The only reason you didn't notice that attitude is because you're mistaken about which side he's on.
It's not Iraq - it's Douglas MacArthur talking about Korea: "In war there is no substitute for victory"
So basically there’s a chance that the current bill might still pass.
Awesome. So the Dems are willing to pass a bill that they know is almost suicidal just so they pass SOMETHING? I generally believe that lefties are wrong, but I had hoped that they were better people than this.
Awesome. So the Dems are willing to pass a bill that they know is almost suicidal just so they pass SOMETHING?
Holdfast: I have no idea why you think passing a meaningful extension of social insurance constitutes "suicide" for the Democrats. Far from it -- it could well solidify their hold on the loyalties of the middle class for years to come. There's a famous quote by Bill Kristol making the rounds -- he uttered it circa 1994. Something about exhorting Republicans to kill hillarycare lest middle class voters receive a reminder about which party it is that champions their interests.
Indeed, when you think about it, if the Republicans really had the national interest at heart, they'd simply let the Democrats pass the most extreme lefty bill conceivable (while putting up a bit of show resistance for public consumption). Because, from the GOP perspective, such a bill would certainly be politically disastrous for the Dems, and would promptly lead to huge, deep GOP majorities combined with a Republican White House. And at that point the GOP could proceed to give us the conservative Nirvana that would so benefit ordinary Americans: you know, privatized Social Security, vast increases in coal consumption, depending on the emergency room for routine care, and all that other awesome stuff.
Anyway, the smart GOPers -- people like McConnell, for instance -- are well aware voters don't willingly give up substantive chunks of the safety net once they've acquired it. Such acquisitions simply exert too powerful a positive influence on average living standards. Hence the furious efforts to stop the Obama train.
You're going to have to provide that quote with references. It's not exactly an easy thing to find with Google. I'm not arguing that Kristol instructed Republicans to battle it at all cost, but the champions of their interest bit is not plausible. Despite all the frothing at the mouth from hyperpartisans on both sides, both parties for the most part consider themselves good faith actors for the people. Shady cabals conpsiring against the public makes for good email chains and movie plots, but is about as likely as South Park's take on the 2008 election.
Insofar as the safety net argument is concerned, you're buying into a straw man argument. The argument between Democrats and Republicans isn't about anarchy versus social democracy, it's an argument between competing versions and funding sources for expanding care, the government's role, centralization vs. federalism, etc.
RichCromwell:
Here is the link you asked for:
Bill Kristol’s 1993 Memo Calling For GOP To Kill Health Care Reform
Take a note of Page 2, half way down.
Actually, it was rather easy. Last paragraph of the second page of Kristol's memo.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/bill-kristols-1993-memo-calling-for-gop-to-block-health-care-reform/
It has nothing to do with "shady cabals." It's simple self-interest. If a given congressperson's hopes for reelection run contrary to doing what is right for the country, he/she will very often worry about reelection first, and the national interest second. Is this really such a mystery?
You're the one creating strawmen. The Republicans obviously don't favor "anarchy." They're simply opposed to the enlargement of the safety net (and indeed they very often advocate the contraction of said safety net), in contrast to the Democrats, who tend to favor its expansion.
"It will relegitamize the middle-class dependence for "security" on government spending and regulation. It will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests." I stand by my statement. Kristol isn't saying that the Democrats ARE the generous protectors of the middle-class, just that they will get the reputation.
I was on the website that doc came from. Why did it just give me paraphrased hyperbole?
Representative government means representing your constituents. Is it a bad thing that we have reps who represent us instead of doing what they perceive to be in the best interest of the country? I don't trust politicians that much.
As to your last point, I missed that point in your statement about net benefits. I don't consider them net positives, but I'm not a fan of indentured servitude.
Indeed, when you think about it, if the Republicans really had the national interest at heart, they'd simply let the Democrats pass the most extreme lefty bill conceivable (while putting up a bit of show resistance for public consumption). Because, from the GOP perspective, such a bill would certainly be politically disastrous for the Dems, and would promptly lead to huge, deep GOP majorities combined with a Republican White House. And at that point the GOP could proceed to give us the conservative Nirvana that would so benefit ordinary Americans: you know, privatized Social Security, vast increases in coal consumption, depending on the emergency room for routine care, and all that other awesome stuff.
I have some doubts as to whether that chain of tortured logic can be arrived at strictly by thinking about it.
Huh? Why is this tortured? If Big Evil Socialist Obamacare is really as horrible for the country as alleged by Republicans, it would stand to reason that it ought to be tempting to let it get passed -- so as to pin the blame on the Democrats for the ensuing misery experienced by American voters -- in order to reap the political rewards that will flow to the opposition.
Clearly you have some fantasies about how national healthcare systems work in practice. My delusions were shattered when I churned through them for years. It's not a safety net but a putrid pit of sorrow.
What Democrats want is to create a country of dependents. Make no mistake, it is a dream of the Republicans to talk free markets while solidifying their role as chief candy distributors to buy votes from interest groups. If the Republicans thought they could achieve that through national healthcare, they would. But their base isn't buying it.
Politicians naturally have an allergy to the population choosing anything for themselves, thereby severely limiting their opportunities for bribe collection. So, they skew the insurance industry with tax exemptions for some but not others, weigh down insurance policies with mandates and write regulation that prohibits interstate sales and limits competition and after this artificial jacking up of insurance premiums they scream that healthcare is broken and, while still holding the axe, declare they are the only ones that can fix it. Just like any mafia.
So let me ask you this:
If government is better and cheaper, then why is medicare and medicaid worse and more than 7x more expensive than projected?
If medicaid is supposed to catch all of those uninsured that are too poor to buy government-bloated insurance policies from nominally private insurance companies, why do we have so many uninsured?
If this is better, faster, cheaper, then why are the politicians exempting themselves from this? Why aren't they piling into this glorious scheme in droves?
If this is such a cost saver, then why do we need such draconian tax hikes to pay for it? Aren't we supposed to be SAVING money on this scheme?
The Republicans aren't stopping this. The Republicans are such a minority now, they are irrelevant. This bill isn't passing because DEMOCRATS are troubled by how much better, faster and cheaper they're going to kill their chances in elections to come - once this thing, in its current form, is irrevocably crashed upon the heads of beleaguered Americans.
So, they skew the insurance industry with tax exemptions for some but not others, weigh down insurance policies with mandates and write regulation that prohibits interstate sales and limits competition and after this artificial jacking up of insurance premiums they scream that healthcare is broken and, while still holding the axe, declare they are the only ones that can fix it. Just like any mafia.
Far too conspiratorial for my taste. You seem to be assembling numerous complexities and inefficiencies that sometimes arose at different times and places in order to address a specific concern or situation (including lobbying by the benefited actors), and claiming them as evidence of some grander, Machievellian scheme to undermine the system in aggregate. While they may have that effect, it is not at all evident that they were implemented or coordinated to that intent.
Please. I have several dozen close relatives who live in Canada, including my mother. They've generally been satisfied with care, and they never see a bill. My mother as a matter of fact recently had hip surgery. For the record, she waited a while for the operation, but as her condition was a gradually worsening one that could be managed, it wasn't a big deal -- they advised her when they first made the diagnosis that her condition would intensify, and that as a result she would eventually need surgery. And that this would likely take place on such and such a date. In fact it was managed care. I also have a sister in Florida who's husband was in a car accident -- and had cancer surgery -- all in the course of several months. They have so called "good" private health insurance through his employer. And yup, they're facing thousands of dollars in co-pays and deductibles. Thanks but no thanks.
I haven't said "government is better and cheaper" so I'm not really sure how to respond. But I would put it this way. In lots of areas we have dual private/public systems. They include education (private and public schools), security (public police and private security firms), pensions (Social Security and private investments), etc., etc. In fact, we have just such a duality in health insurance already ((Medicare/Medicaid + private health insurance). I just want that duality to be comprehensive -- to cover everybody -- and to be good and robust and rational. I'm all ears if the Republicans have a plan they think will get us there better than what the Democrats are offering. But all I hear is silence.
I think you're right. I strongly believe a bill will make it to Obama's desk.
Please. I have several dozen close relatives who live in Canada, including my mother. They've generally been satisfied with care, and they never see a bill.
Does that mean that we should ignore the 875,000 Canadians waiting for medical treatment right now? Or the fact that Canadians turn to the courts claiming that such long waiting times are not humane? Look, America's system is faaaar from perfect, even the uninsured cannot be denied treatment and they don't wait on long wait lists either. For all this, healthcare consumes over a third of provincial revenues, projected to rise to 44% within 10 years. Medical expenses are rising by $5B per year - with no improvements to healthcare and no shortening of the wait lists. Thanks, but no thanks.
You said your mother had to wait a while as her condition got worse. Have you ever had hip problems? It must have been very painful for your mother. My uncle in Toronto had to wait two YEARS just to get an appointment with a specialist for a nerve problem that virtually prohibited him from walking. And you say she didn't get a bill? She paid by waiting in pain - and that's for starters.
Are you sure your mother never got a bill? Your sister in Florida got a bill for the decuctable and co-pay. But how much did your sister pay in taxes and health insurance premiums in Florida vs. your mother in Canada? Your mother may not have received a bill after her procedure, but I'll wager she paid higher taxes all her life and she paid by waiting. Thanks, but not thanks, to quote you.
I haven't said "government is better and cheaper" so I'm not really sure how to respond.
How have you missed that? This is what Obama is promising to deliver in this single-payer system. Better care (presumably no wait lists because that wouldn't be better). Better access (also presumably no wait lists). Cheaper, but no exclusion or higher fees for pre-existing conditions - I guess because he can perform magic. Yet, not a single government run program has failed to massively exceed its cost targets while making its patients miserable. And if it's cheaper then why charge an employee surcharge of 8% plus an income tax on higher earners (which, I guarantee you will be gradually imposed on ever lower incomes because 1.) there aren't enough high earners and 2.) the incentive effect of a tax hike will reduce the number further and 3.) We already know this will cost more than they projected). Why would you want that as any option other than an option of last resort?
But I would put it this way. In lots of areas we have dual private/public systems. They include education (private and public schools), security (public police and private security firms), pensions (Social Security and private investments), etc., etc.
Yes, government has gotten its tentacle into everything. You can't opt out of public schools, social security or police (you don't have to use, but you have to pay). I don't know about private security, but Social Security and public schools are a disaster. Why would healthcare be different?
I just want that duality to be comprehensive -- to cover everybody -- and to be good and robust and rational.
You don't want it to cover everybody. You're interested in making everyone pay for it. Be honest. Point to a single government program that is good, robust and rational in the United States.
I'm all ears if the Republicans have a plan they think will get us there better than what the Democrats are offering. But all I hear is silence.
So, if you don't hear anything from Republicans, you are all in favour of taking a bad system and making it worse? That's great logic. And why does it have to be a Republican proposing it? This our family's health we're talking about, not political blood sport.
I think we should look at Singapor's system. It works much better than Canada's, America's or Europe's. Singapore requires that people contribute to the their HSAs, but doesn't actually run the health care system - allowing competition to drive down costs and increase choice in actual provisioning. We should also look at allowing insurance providers to compete interstate, which would tear down significant barriers to entry for new competitors - again, decreasing price and increasing choice. Competition usually drives down price and increases choice because the only way to survive is to offer people the choice they want at a price they're willing to pay. Right now, insurance is controlled by the state and differences in state to state premiums are largely a result of differences in mandates. For example, my premiums went from $13K per year to $5K per year when I moved from NY to CT. Same coverage. For those who really can't afford insurance still, publicly funded vouchers can be given to them so that they may buy the coverage of their choice. You still have a mix of public and private funding, but provisioning stays out of the hands of bureaucrats. The government is very efficient at collecting the taxes for redistribution, but it's very inefficient at actual service provision. Let the government collect the taxes for the vouchers for the poor and let the private sector compete for those vouchers by offering the poor the services they want.
Waiting times are a fact of life in any healthcare system, including that of the US. My own guess would be that, adjusted for population, there are more Americans waiting for treatment than Canadians. I mean, there would only have to be about 9 million Americans waiting for treatment for the situation to be proportionally worse in the states. That seems a fair bet given the huge number of uninsured and underinsured Americans. In fact, in America there are millions of people (those who can't afford health insurance, that is) who wait interminably for treatment, unless their condition worsens to the extent that they need to use the emergency room. Heckuva system.
Um, yes.
Given the five or six points of GDP difference in Canada's favor in terms of healthcare spending, I really don't think you want to go the "cost" route in comparing the two systems. Just sayin.
No, I'm in favor of taking our bad system and making it better, along best practices social democratic lines. One of the advantages of coming to universal healthcare late in the game is that the US can cherrypick what works best from among the various models used by the rest of the rich world. I happen to be familiar with the Canadian model because of family -- but I don't regard it as the best model on offer. I'd probably opt for the Australian (you've heard of that radically communist country down under, right?) or French models.
It is, of course, typical of the far left to completely ignore an actual proposal and then assert scary situations on that recognized and respected statistical methodology of "I'll wager that..." when faced with actual hard numbers compiled by the Canadians themselves.
You are either not interested on incapable of serious discussion. Have a good weekend.
"Indeed, when you think about it, if the Republicans really had the national interest at heart, they'd simply let the Democrats pass the most extreme lefty bill conceivable (while putting up a bit of show resistance for public consumption)"
Is that the "we had to kill the country in order to save it" argument. This is real life, not a friggin debating society - how many people will have their lives ruined, and how many new treatments will not be invented, while we let this "experiment" run its course?
"But I am increasingly sure that it will be a very bad bill--larded with pork and inefficiency in order to bribe districts like Walt Minnick's into keeping him in office."
Megan, maybe you could further explicate this point. They larded up the stimulus with pork, and it has, what, like only 25% of folks thinking it has worked. They larded up the stalled Cap and Trade with pork. If they now do the same to some form of a Health Care bill, I don't see how this appeals to moderate voters. Seems smarter not to fall for porky goodies? Am I missing something?
Megan:
By "pork and inefficiency" are you referring to earmarks and earmark-like bribes to individual congresscritters? I don't think there's any way around those, but that's our system. If we switched to a Westminster-style parliamentary government with tight discipline, we could cut down on pork. As it is, the one or two points of the federal budget that go to earmarks and pork aren't that big a deal.
If, by pork/inefficiency you're referring to Big Pharma/Big Healthcare giveaways incorporated into the core legislation, you may be right, too, but I don't see how those could be construed as "bribes" to "districts" unless said district is, say, home to the headquarters of a big insurance company.
I guess what I'm saying is, from the prospective of liberals, a good bill is a good bill if it has the things liberals want (public option, guaranteed issue, subsidies to 400% of poverty, etc.). The amount of pork needed for passage is really neither here nor there. Rather, it's a rounding error.
I grew up in the first district of Idaho, and while my finger was never exactly on the pulse of population, something is definitely wrong with this analysis.
LaRocco was defeated by Helen Chenoweth, who ran on a platform of term limits, limited government, and black helicopters. Voters who are disappointed because their candidate didn't bring them Universal health care don't show it by voting for a militia sympathizer who wants to dismantle the federal government.
I don't think Hillary Care would have helped him even if it did pass. I also don't know that it would have helped the rest of the Democratic reps who got defeated in '94.
Travis:
Did you see the very first reply in response to MM's post? Minnick beat someone who is as batshit crazy as Helen Chenoweth was/still is(I imagine). I guess my question is why did Minnick register as a Democrat? Why doesn't he just re-register as a Republican? No one would blame him.
What Megan has beautifully described in this post is also exactly what happened to the climate change initiative (via the Washington Post). The biggest single polluter, livestock, has been excluded so that "something" called "climate change" could pass. We all feared that some industries could get a free pass via cap'n'trade but nobody dreamed that we would start with this - especially with the worst polluter there is. Worse than all cars, planes and trucks combined.
It is true that cap'n'trade puts a ceiling on CO2 but many forget that climate change is just a symptom of environmental destruction. Species loss as we have never seen before has not started due to climate change yet but due to disappearing rainforest and polluted waters etc. In fact, climate change is the least worrying symptom of all and that is why we have tried to tackle it first a few decades ago. Excluding livestock from the environment bill is like excluding food subsidies from health care reform.
I don't have such a big problem with lobbying per se. If the EPA had more budget for example - I would recommend spending 100% on lobbying. As it is - the EPA gets 1/100 per year from the government compared to the USDA, FDA and farmers. Pharma has also some spare change here and there. The first mover benefit of the communist, yes communist, Republican farmers. The first mover benefit of capitalist pharma. However, that is "a" problem but not "the" problem to me.
"The" problem and not merely "a" problem is that even when environmentalists and health care activists do good lobbying and awareness work - they mainly discuss treatment over prevention. Treatment is like rewarding status quo. This is what the farm lobby is hoping for and that is what they get even from their worst enemies: rewarding the status quo.
Fighting and treating symptoms, be it ecological, economical or health care symptoms, sounds like a political passion. Prevention and fighting causes at the root is not American - every child knows or at least is being taught that. Causes lay in the past - treatment in the future. Causes imply that we might be responsible and that we would have to change - but only over war. We are forward thinking. Our treatments of symptoms can become better than a solution to the cause. Somebody explain to me how one can cure a symptom - is that not an oxymoron even to people who think like engineers or politicians? When you do this all the time - it becomes utterly irrelevant if you are left or right.
I can understand why big-pharma wants more treatment and less prevention. But that is the only industry I know off. When it comes to farming - the story is different. Farming would benefit, also economically, from prevention and not mere treatment.
Hugo - you don't know what you are talking about. Prevention and fighting causes at the root is not an issue of being "American" or not. I work in an industry where everything I do is about prevention and fighting causes. We work very hard to predict and prevent problems from occuring. There is a whole methodology built around looking for possible ways in which problems may occur and then finding ways to reduce their likelihood and mitigate the harm they may cause if they do occur. In fact, there are a number of methodologies built around this.
What you are seeing is how markets reward short term benefit. That is an unfortunately aspect of our financial system (and more). A lack of long-term thinking causes all kinds of problems. But there are plenty of examples of prevention and addressing causes, as well.
Big Pharma doesn't want more treatment and less prevention, Big Pharma wants maximum return on investment. So does everyone else.
A lot of peoople conflate opposition to the Democratic Health Care bill with believing that our current system is perfect and not in need of reform. I suspect that most people who oppose the current Democratic plans would support other reforms. Likewise, many who oppose the Cap and Trade scheme would support some form of environmental protection. I doubt very many people really just don't care about the environment. Just like very few people just don't care if people die for lack of health care. The argument is really mostly about the means, not the end.
But there does seem to be some truth in the statement that Liberals think Conservatives are Evil while Conservatives think Liberals are Stupid.
Earnest. We may be living in different universe. Ever since I first came to the US - Americans are getting fatter and fatter, heart disease and diabetes raises and farmers get more and more government support for saturated fats and sugars.
The people I talked to believed due to media reports and because they wanted to hear it - that obesity and diabetes are somehow genetic. They wanted treatment - not to start eating less. And we have also seen enough business that are defending the status quo and miss out change. That is why new and small guys always get a chance - but I am not and was never talking about business here per se.
I obviously do not believe that no American practices prevention. First, I consider myself one myself - if some real Americans like it or not. Second - you must read me for the first time if you think that I am thinking in absolutes when I construct my sentences. I do not think in stupid and evil. When I say that big-pharma wants more treatment I do not view treatment or pharma as bad. My father and sister have been saved due to better treatment. I don't want to exchange oxygen for food - I need both. But it should be clear to anybody who literally not blind that we have a prevention challenge.
Compared to how much treatment is going on - there is virtually no prevention. Smoking is an exception. Even the most religious copernicans believe that quitting smoking is often better than more lung cancer research.
PS: I think I know what I am talking about. Do you know what I am talking about? The solution here might be better treatment and more left government money and more right pharma - but again - that would not be the universe that I live in where apples fall down and not up etc and which seems to be governed by strange natural laws that cannot be bend - no matter who much one tries.
Whenever Obama mentions prevention - the right and left jump on him. Well, they don't really jump because most cannot do so for reason shown above.
PS II: New years resolution: I will check my posts for spelling and grammar mistakes more often. This is also knows as reading what you have written before you posts?
I amusing myself here. "This is also know*n* as..." Luckily you are no Republican and will not assume that I am stupid.
raising taxes, raising spending, getting into costly wars in the Middle East that don't go so well
Aside from libertarian bleating - which like most things libertarian is electorally irrelevant - is there any evidence anywhere that people voted against GOP candidates in '06 and '08 because Republicans spent too much money?
Is there any evidence that deficits and debt have ever been a decisive issue in any election? This is taken as a matter of course among those on the Right, but I've not seen anything to back that up.
That would be the main reason I voted against them, yes. The Iraq war was a financial disaster, among other kinds of disasters. Believe me, if they'd gotten the job done in 90 days, they'd still be in power.
Far too conspiratorial for my taste. You seem to be assembling numerous complexities and inefficiencies that sometimes arose at different times and places in order to address a specific concern or situation (including lobbying by the benefited actors), and claiming them as evidence of some grander, Machievellian scheme to undermine the system in aggregate. While they may have that effect, it is not at all evident that they were implemented or coordinated to that intent.
I think you're engaging in some mental gymnastics to get to a Machiavellian scheme. I didn't mean to imply a conspiracy and I never ever said anything about coordination (barring the deals struck between lobbyists and politicians). I mean that the entire industry was screwed up by the politicians individually monetizing their power by selling it to the insurance lobby. All of it random and all of it out of self-interest. But, when politicians have power to hand out candy and wield sticks, the result is a non-functioning, distorted market and consumers get screwed.
The lesson is NEVER EVER give government power. The American Nomenklatura in congress will surely sell such a valuable commodity to enrich themselves. The founding fathers understood this - hence the increasingly ignored constitution limiting the power of the government.
Hugo - the government is not going to make people eat less or exercise more. Or if it does, it will be a far more intrusive and tyrannical government than I would want to live under. Given how efforts to help fat people in the US to lose weight fail consistently and human beings in the US and other countries are very similiar genetically, I suspect that the real problem is something else. My guess is that it has to do with our food supply, as you've mentioned before. As long as our food is loaded up with crap like corn syrup and yeast and milk (all three are common in many, many prepard foods, even ones you wouldn't expect), we'll probably continue to be fat. Americans aren't inherently lazier or weak-willed than Europeans, but they do have a different food supply. It may be something else. Regardless, to continue to exhort people to eat less and exercise and ignore the other issues is like beating your head against a wall. Well not quite as eating less and exercising are good things and people should do them but in the end forcing people to diet and exercise is not going to be a valid solution.
People jump on Obama because whenever he talks about his plan, half of what he says are outright lies. And he is pushing this with incredible haste for something that affects everyone's health care and a huge chunk of the economy. What happened to the supposedly intelligent and thoughtful Obama who would come up with a smart solution? Instead we have the usual idiots (Congress) patching together a politically expedient bill that will do something, though nobody is quite sure what. And Obama is running around telling everyone to support it but seems to be not trying to get Congress to put together a good bill.
Earnest,
Is that the end of any serious discussion with you? I fear it is. I have tried many times and you either seem to think that people here are dummer than a 4 year old or you yourself are not interested in a two-way-street discussion? Or, as a 3rd option, you yourself are not as bright as.. never mind.
You wrtie: "the government is not going to make people eat less or exercise more. Or if it does, it will be a far more intrusive and tyrannical government than I would want to live under. "
Who would ever want that or said anything about that? Not me. This was never for discssion. Using your logic - the government is currently forcing us to eat unhealthy fats and sugars because they act as a farming nanny. I want the goverment to stop forcing us to get fat and unhealthy.
Using your logic - stop forcing the government to force us to be unhealthy and then come along with alibi "sick care".
I have tried in many words to tell you that we are only looking at half the coin in case we mean real health care and not merely sick care (treatment). You either seem to think that prevention is "forcing" when I was only talking about an end to fat subsidies. Then you pretend that I do not seem to know that prevention is currently not part of the public debate - I know that and that is what my outrage is all about.
I have a VERY bad aftertaste in my mouth after this discussion. Either you have embarressed your, mine or both our intelligence. And you claim that you are working on "prevention" at your job all the time? Hell, after so many words I feel almost certain that you are not certain what prevention really means. It is NOT automatically tyranny. Let´s save grace and avoid discussions among ourselves? They have this "how can I avoid his point" smell - from both of us?
I don't understand why this great country can't figure out how to fix our system. I don't buy that it's because of bad actors on one side or the other. There is no political consensus. The public doesn't understand what's really wrong or how to fix it, so of course they're resistant to change. Topologically speaking, we've gotten to a local maximum, where change will move lots (too many?) of players to a worse position, at least for awhile. So the choices are:
- no significant change (the likely outcome)
- confuse people into thinking the change won't affect them (that's Obama's move)
- blast change through using power moves and hope that the reaction doesn't destroy you (Pelosi on health care, Paulson last fall, Bush on Iraq, etc.)
- run a bunch of state-level experiments and use the results to develop a real consensus (takes more time than Dems are willing to allow)