Intermission note: Before continuing to give my second part -- this time about some craziness on the left -- I want to say this about Health Care
It appears that President Obama may have to retreat from the "public option" in his effort to achieve some Health Care Reform, this year. It may surprise you to learn that I approve of this jiu jitsu move.
What, you think this is the only battle in this fight? The "only chance?" That kind of impatience ruined Hillary's over-reach in 93 and torpedoed her husband's presidency. Pragmatists prefer incrementalism.
I say, let the insurance companies crow over a "victory" that substantially changes the health insurance marketplace for the better, drives competition, but leaves out a government -run system to take up the slack where people cannot get policies by private means.
Why? Because a man as smart as Obama knows that a multi-step judo move works better than one big sumo charge. Once he has his market reforms in place, he can then do something simple, that would undercut the for-profits and really force them to the negotiating table.
Call for a followup bill that simply puts all american children under Medicare.
The reasoning is simple and implacable -- if old people deserve it, so do their equally vulnerable grandchildren.
Put it just that way, starkly and simply. A bill that could go on one page of paper. One that needs no extensive argument or amending. Vote now: Is this a good idea or not? Yea or nay. Most would not dare oppose it.
Remove forty million Americans, in a shot, from the rolls of the for-profits, and you'll get their attention, all right. Next, threaten to raise the cutoff age from 18 to 21... then 25... and watch how quickly they come to the negotiating table.
Ah, judo.
======
Yes, some of you have heard this idea, many times before. But its simplicity bears repeating.
Note: poor kids are already getting government health benefits under SCHIP -- though in a far more complex way. Hence, this change would not be a huge new expense. But it would simplify matters greatly.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Runaway Serfer
Joan Walsh
Kerry Lauerman
Salon.com
Comments
This idea, though, manages to tug at the right strings - the children - and also walks that incremental path.
Good idea. Marketable.
it's the same way i felt about the fisa legislation last summer. i would rather have clarity in the law than trust politicians to exercise oversight consistently. we're watching a demonstration that shows just how hard the republicans will fight any health care reform. staggering reforms might just give them more battles and more opportunities to mobilize their idiots.
Really David? Really?
No offense, but I think your suggested solution is even more radically pie-in-the-sky than a public option. A full MANDATE for an entire age group? Come on.
Furthermore, incrementalism works when there is incremental progress, and my limited understanding of this bill suggests that it includes little or none.
I like your politics and enjoy your writing, but I disagree with your tactical approach in this instance. There is a rare and fleeting window of opportunity to implement a less radical change than you propose: a public option, now.
With respect, I fear the moment is quickly passing.
Americans have shown that they are profoundly -- not just a little -- more willing to be "socialistic" toward children than toward adults. Anyone who does not understand this about American simply does NOT understand Americans. For pete's sake, look at education.
We... or a large fraction of us... believe adults should to some degree take care of themselves. That old timey, wild west spirit collapses when the issue is kids. If Dems focused entirely on kids, they would win in a walk.
Yes, that insures forty million, while leaving their parents in the cold. But parents who have one less worry. One less expense. And the health insurance cos will suddenly lose 20 million (or more) customers.
And next year, the age limit can be raised to include everyone even in college.
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1997/mar97/97-03-25.html
it's amazing to see how little the rhetoric has changed. it's all about freedom and choices, which is why i think it's interesting to see the fact that something that's called a "public option" is still attacked as socialism.
Denying justice is the least pragmatic move possible. Reality doesn't change just because we don't consider it "politically viable". Go ahead and you pick the kids to deny healthcare to. Tell them it's not pragmatic.
This is the same sort of wishful thinking that got us into Iraq.
Additionally, I value the art of making incremental goals, as long as it is in line with the foundation of the overall goal. I don't see how overlooking the real problem of un/under insured Americans in the name of an "incremental political win" because children were signed up (when they are already eligible under another plan, however burdensome) does much to win the battle.
We are primed, it is time to win the battle. We just need a consistent, willing, committed voice out of the White House, the Democrats, as well as Americans. The wingnuts are dominating the conversation in terms of what Americans think about HCR. I would love to see a "solidarity march" on Washington D.C. in support of the public option...just think what we look like to the outside world right now...the only thing the papers captured after the President's speech is the march made by the "tea baggers". Why are we not assembling too?
That said, your proposal does have merit.
Result? SIXTEEN YEARS of almost no progress in Health care, a dismal, floundering failure that left her husband's presidency permanently crippled and resulting in the "Gingrich Revolution" taking over Congress for the Republicans.
THAT is what "all or nothing" got us, last time. And people actually have the nerve to deride incrementalism now?
Dig it, a partial success now lets Obama make things one big step better... and have a victory that he can take into the 2010 elections, with the goppers looking like the losers. That is why the GOP leaders have offered no compromises, because they WANT it to be all-or-nothing.
As for covering all kids, undermedicare, no one would dare oppose it. The equity - compared to the elderly - is just too plain and Americans are vastly more "socialistic" in their attitudes toward children than toward adults. When everyone over 65 and below 18... then 21... then in college... is covered, can't you see the beginning of the Big Squeeze?
Again. At that point the healthcos will have to negotiate.
So, in the end, if we dont get single payer/public option type legislation, your suggestion would be one worth pursuing.
We cannot count a single R. Party enforcement is total over there. To not toe the line is to become the next Arlen Specter, a man with no country. And, we will have a hard time gathering the Ds. The money being shoveled at them is simply too immense. So we are likely this session to come away with precious little.
Next year, being congressional election season, will see the Rs gain back a few seats and the Ds whining that now they REALLY cant do anything because those nasty Rs beat them up again.
Kibuki theatre, all of it.
because you're right. i am too young to remember, but i'm not to young to research what happened. you're pitching a fantasy here:
"As for covering all kids, undermedicare, no one would dare oppose it. The equity - compared to the elderly - is just too plain and Americans are vastly more "socialistic" in their attitudes toward children than toward adults."
they did dare oppose it. we should pay attention to how that battle went. maybe we can win it, but you're wrong when you say it would be easier.
" In 1994, the American people decisively rejected the grandiose Clinton plan for the Federal Government to be the manager, the financier, and the regulator of the health care industry. What we are witnessing now is an attempt by Kennedy, Clinton and Hatch to enact the same plan incrementally, starting with children.
Let's not lose our perspective. Children are the healthiest segment of our society. Contrary to Hatch's extravagant rhetoric, most of the children who lack health insurance are not "scarred for the rest of their lives."
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1997/mar97/97-03-25.html