The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Alex]

One thing to keep in mind is that not all of the opposition to the current proposal is not because it is too progressive. Some significant portion of that opposition is from people who feel it is not progressive enough.

So the question would be how many of those people would oppose the plan when the choice is "this or nothing" as opposed to "this compared to your ideal."

[scaeagles]

That is exactly right, Alex. That's why Bush's approval rating was so low - he had lost the conservatives too. This is why Obama's approval rating is crashing. He's losing the far left (and a large portion of the independents).

Howard Dean said he'd vote no on the current bill. Olberman said he'd rather go to jail than do some of the things in the current plan (being forced to purchase insurance from an insurance company).

But the dems are desperate to try to pass anything so they can claim a victory - it is the same as the republicans trying to block everything so they can do the same.

[Alex]

Yes, by my point is that much of that opposition from the left is essentially meaningless as it'll evaporate (though obviously not all of it) in the face of the status quo.

I haven't heard the Olbermann quote, but if that's accurate it's pretty stupid since he's already buying insurance from an insurance company and nobody is making him.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

I haven't heard the Olbermann quote, but if that's accurate it's pretty stupid since he's already buying insurance from an insurance company and nobody is making him.

Well, I share some reservations with him about a Massachusets-style solution, where everyone is required to buy insurance, else face a penalty from the government, which I assume is what he's referring to. But then, as is well known around here, my ideal endpoint is to see private insurance phased out entirely, so that's no real surprise.

[Alex]

That's fine, but saying he'd go to jail before buying private insurance is stupid when he's already buying private insurance.

I can see an objection to being forced by the government to buy a private product but then he's not going to jail over car insurance (I know he doesn't drive so I don't know if he personally buys any, but then he wouldn't qualify for any version of the public option that's been discussed either since he has employer provided insurance so both are purely hypothetical for him).

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

That's fine, but saying he'd go to jail before buying private insurance is stupid when he's already buying private insurance.

I don't see any stupidity in differentiating between choosing to buy private insurance vs. being required to under penalty of law. Whether he'd stand buy his word and refuse his employer-provided insurance and risk said penalty by not buying any insurance should such a provision be enacted remains to be seen, and will likely turn out to be hyperbole. But I don't think currently paying, by choice, for private insurance disqualifies someone from being opposed to being legally required to buy it.

[Alex]

But on what principal does he differentiate it from car insurance or other instances of government mandating purchases of private insurance without provision of a publicly managed option? I guess I just find the hyperbole stupid, and the principal on which he is apparently standing empty since a week ago when he thought the Medicare buy-in was part of it he was ok with me being forced to buy health insurance from private companies under penalty of law (he, being 50 now would have been nearly ready to qualify by the time things kicked in).

And I guess I see his stupidity more in his "all or nothing" approach to it. Everybody knew when all of this started that a public option was almost certainly an impossible achievement. Yes, for negotiating reasons you have to start there but it was never realistic. And sticking out the lower lip and stomping around and gnashing the teeth just looks stupid (to me).

And the nonsensical fixation on going through reconciliation just strikes me as more fantasy. Somehow they've decided that the 20% benefit is more important than the 80% benefit and so are willing to sacrifice the latter to get the former, assuming it even worked enough to get the latter.

I just can't help but be reminded of how much Ted Kennedy came to regret scuttling the deal that was reached on health care reform 30 years ago because it didn't get him everything he wanted soon enough. I've not yet seen any of the left opposition make a compelling case for how the proposal is worse than the status quo, simply that it lacks important parts of what they want.

I agree that cost containment is important (and apparently the far left argument is that the uninsured should only get health care if it can be provided cheaply enough). I also agree it is important to make sure that everybody has access health care. Personally, I think having the latter will create pressures making the former much more likely. And getting both at the same time just stacks too many interests against the entirety.

[Gemini Cricket]

Zoinks!

The Star Bulletin in Honolulu printed my Letter to the Editor.

President should not make more promises

During his vacation here, I'm hoping that Mr. Obama doesn't make any New Year's resolutions for 2010. I mean, the Defense of Marriage Act and "don't ask, don't tell" still exist, despite his campaign promises to get rid of them. So, why make any new promises, Mr. President? I'm old-fashioned. I'm a man of my word. I don't go back on mine, if I make anyone a promise. I wish more politicians had integrity like that.

Brad _______
Kailua

Source

[Ghoulish Delight]

I agree that wanting to toss the whole thing out over the issue is dumb, and the way he stated his disapproval is dumb. Won't argue that.

As for the difference between this and auto insurance, among other things, in some sense there IS a public option for auto insurance - public transit. There's also the fact that the mandate for auto insurance is about making sure you don't fvck someone else over (except for no-fault states, the requirement is that carry insurance that covers the other person's car, not your own), as opposed to covering yourself, so there's a different set of reasoning for it. And, most importantly, auto insurance companies make business decisions that might mean that some individual might, in service of increasing some exec's pocket change, not be allowed to drive their car, while medical insurance companies make those same business decisions at risk of costing people their lives. So I think there's some more justification for being rather opposed to something that bolsters that system and stands to continue to reward them for making those business decisions.

But yes, Olberman's reported stance is a bit of dramatic hyperbole, and I am definitely in favor of doing SOMETHING to get more people covered as opposed to doing nothing. I just don't think that forcing people to pay for insurance, when the whole point is that they can't afford insurance to begin with, makes a lot of sense.

[Alex]

But that last sentence will be true with any version of the public option discussed as well.

Public or private it requires people who can't afford insurance now (or choose not to) to buy insurance and then offers subsidies to those who can't afford. The difference with a public option (potentially) is that you'd subsidies would be cheaper if the plan really is cheaper than private insurance but that doesn't really have much to do with affordability on the consumer end.