Why Obama Might Be Right
Published by BG on Tuesday, June 05, 2007 at 10:47 AM.One of the knocks on Obama to this point has been his lack of accumulated political experience and capital, two soft spots on his resume that have had his opponents and the media demanding proof of political substance over stump speech platitudes. To that end, Obama has recently released his ideas on health care, which are sketched out from genesis to mechanics at FireDogLake.
The following clips aren't exactly a paid advertisement, but they may as well be.
Firedoglake - Firedoglake weblog » Shifting The Health Care Discussion: The Obama Plan
Unfortunately, it's that last part that's going to have people shutting down their receptiveness. The left has been so conditioned on the talking point of "universal" health care, that anything less seems like half-delivering on the promises of the party's platform.
Now, I'm no expert in health care, nor am I advocating for this plan specifically, but I would like to point out a couple of pieces here that got my curiosity up:
Obviously, if you want more specifics than what I've clipped (except the detail about how we're going to pay for this, that part is conveniently left out), go read the article. Some thoughts, however:
Is it a politically shrewd move to tell his constituency, the same constituency that reflexively hates "special interests," that we're going to find a way to make Big Medicine work for us? Probably not alongside Hillary, no. But in a vacuum, is it actually an intelligent triangulation? Absolutely. Look, any single nudge in the general direction of so-called "socialized medicine" is going to have the health care industry up in arms. They are able to dictate pricing to a large batch of insurance providers (who, in turn, mark up the costs and/or selectively deny coverage as well), which makes sure their profit margins stay within their own control. "Socialized" medicine, at the point of universal coverage, puts drug companies at the mercy of a single bulk buyer who can dictate terms. Naturally, this could and should lead to more aggressive price control.
So what happens if true "socialized" medicine is implemented under Democratic leadership? Well, it either works or it doesn't, to some degree. The better question is, what happens to universal health care when the Republicans come back into power? Even under an optimistic scenario where the program was working brilliantly, would it be a huge leap to assume that Republican leadership would find ways to chip away at the "socialized" nature of the program and deliver privatized carve-outs back to the health care industry?
There are Republicans who would begrudgingly accept what, in essence, amounts to a welfare program - but they'd find a way to make sure that it was limited in access to "the deserving," or that privatization began to encroach on governmental delivery of services, or that what the government was willing to insure met with some "moral" code that pandered to fringe elements of their party*.
*Can anyone else already hear the swords being sharpened over "what to do" about birth control under "socialized" health care in this country?
I think Obama's actually on the right track with his idea here. Don't take privatization out of the loop, as there is some value to exploiting the efficiencies of the market. Plus, it gives the right-wing the ability to tinker with the plan once they're back in power, as opposed to corrupting** the very nature of the idea through future privatization efforts. And, as an added bonus, because it's being proposed that private entities continue to exist as insurance providers, the government can throw up their hands and profess an inability to legislate morality*** for the insurance provided by those providers.
**I don't mean "corrupting" as "taking money out and putting it in their freezer." I mean to take the ideal of state-provided services and change the entire foundation of the idea by allowing "special interests" to again dictate their own terms.
***Could also read, "...profess an inability to legislate morality for the subsection of citizenry who are wealthy and deserving enough to afford the more capitalistic and free-market approach to providing insurance for their families. The rest of you who choose to suckle off the government's teat might as well accept Jesus as your personal Lord and savior before opting in."
I'm actually a little encouraged by this plan, as it seems to represent what could become the hybrid bipartisan channel by which we solve an acknowledged problem in this society. It seems like something that's a step in the right direction, but clearly not a big leap into olive drab and the philosophy of Marx and Engels.
(Obviously, how we pay for this is certainly the next question to ask. The magic of rolling back the Bush tax cuts isn't likely to accomplish something this grand, and buy us all our pony too.)
The following clips aren't exactly a paid advertisement, but they may as well be.
Firedoglake - Firedoglake weblog » Shifting The Health Care Discussion: The Obama Plan
(T)o his credit, Obama has come out with a health care plan that is definitely substantial and sometimes courageous — the adoption of which would almost certainly lead to more people covered, and getting better value for the vast amount of money that we spend. In spite of its billing, it's not truly universal, but it's still transformational.
Unfortunately, it's that last part that's going to have people shutting down their receptiveness. The left has been so conditioned on the talking point of "universal" health care, that anything less seems like half-delivering on the promises of the party's platform.
Now, I'm no expert in health care, nor am I advocating for this plan specifically, but I would like to point out a couple of pieces here that got my curiosity up:
The Obama plan envisions a much bigger role for the federal government as an honest broker for the health care free market...
(I)t's not a totally universal health plan...
(D)oing what it takes to cover absolutely everyone requires methods that are too controversial...
For me, anyway, the "red meat" part of the plan deals with cost-control: You know how we hate getting bled dry by fatcat corporations? How they're always out to screw the little guy? Well, they are, and Obama's plan tries to rein them in — with The Truth, baby. By putting together a wonk-hive of Joe Friday-meets-House health care research genuises, we're going to know what technologies and treatments work, and which don't. We're going to know which hospitals, docs and drugs are good, and which suck. (Count on it — they won't like that very much.) We're going to do preventative care, finally; we're going to stop rewarding providers for doing piecemeal services (expensive), and instead reward them for providing health (cheaper). We're going to make insurers open up and tell us how much of our premiums is actually going towards care, and how much towards CEOs' yachts and stogies. Yeah, all this is pretty wonky, but it gets right to the heart of one of the big problems in American health care: We don't know what we're doing — and some people like it that way. Ignorance isn't just bliss — it's gold.
[snip]
Considering the fierce mix of special interests involved, there's no way our politicians will do any of the right things without massive pressure from the outside. So it's up to us to keep guiding the process. We've got to reject Godzilla vs. Mothra politics — of gigantic special interests battling it out among themselves, while the rest of us run screaming. We've gotta own this issue — hell, we're paying for it.
Obviously, if you want more specifics than what I've clipped (except the detail about how we're going to pay for this, that part is conveniently left out), go read the article. Some thoughts, however:
Is it a politically shrewd move to tell his constituency, the same constituency that reflexively hates "special interests," that we're going to find a way to make Big Medicine work for us? Probably not alongside Hillary, no. But in a vacuum, is it actually an intelligent triangulation? Absolutely. Look, any single nudge in the general direction of so-called "socialized medicine" is going to have the health care industry up in arms. They are able to dictate pricing to a large batch of insurance providers (who, in turn, mark up the costs and/or selectively deny coverage as well), which makes sure their profit margins stay within their own control. "Socialized" medicine, at the point of universal coverage, puts drug companies at the mercy of a single bulk buyer who can dictate terms. Naturally, this could and should lead to more aggressive price control.
So what happens if true "socialized" medicine is implemented under Democratic leadership? Well, it either works or it doesn't, to some degree. The better question is, what happens to universal health care when the Republicans come back into power? Even under an optimistic scenario where the program was working brilliantly, would it be a huge leap to assume that Republican leadership would find ways to chip away at the "socialized" nature of the program and deliver privatized carve-outs back to the health care industry?
There are Republicans who would begrudgingly accept what, in essence, amounts to a welfare program - but they'd find a way to make sure that it was limited in access to "the deserving," or that privatization began to encroach on governmental delivery of services, or that what the government was willing to insure met with some "moral" code that pandered to fringe elements of their party*.
*Can anyone else already hear the swords being sharpened over "what to do" about birth control under "socialized" health care in this country?
I think Obama's actually on the right track with his idea here. Don't take privatization out of the loop, as there is some value to exploiting the efficiencies of the market. Plus, it gives the right-wing the ability to tinker with the plan once they're back in power, as opposed to corrupting** the very nature of the idea through future privatization efforts. And, as an added bonus, because it's being proposed that private entities continue to exist as insurance providers, the government can throw up their hands and profess an inability to legislate morality*** for the insurance provided by those providers.
**I don't mean "corrupting" as "taking money out and putting it in their freezer." I mean to take the ideal of state-provided services and change the entire foundation of the idea by allowing "special interests" to again dictate their own terms.
***Could also read, "...profess an inability to legislate morality for the subsection of citizenry who are wealthy and deserving enough to afford the more capitalistic and free-market approach to providing insurance for their families. The rest of you who choose to suckle off the government's teat might as well accept Jesus as your personal Lord and savior before opting in."
I'm actually a little encouraged by this plan, as it seems to represent what could become the hybrid bipartisan channel by which we solve an acknowledged problem in this society. It seems like something that's a step in the right direction, but clearly not a big leap into olive drab and the philosophy of Marx and Engels.
(Obviously, how we pay for this is certainly the next question to ask. The magic of rolling back the Bush tax cuts isn't likely to accomplish something this grand, and buy us all our pony too.)
Powered by ScribeFire.
