I've been intentionally avoiding the healthcare debate. For one thing I was on vacation for two weeks and blissfully insulated from news stories about "death panels" and clips of seniors on Medicare angrily denouncing "government-run healthcare." Also, it just makes me plain mad -- and I don't like being mad. Yes, the exploding cost of healthcare and health insurance is a sore subject for my family.
Now that the Obama administration seems to be backing away from a public option (the one thing that would put the fear of God in the insurance industry) there's talk that Congress may simply try to pass a bill that contains only those non-controversial measures almost everyone agrees on. If that happens I'm guessing it would spell the end of any hope for meaningful reform this time around, and it would probably be seen as a defeat for Obama and a victory for conservatives—at least the sort of fearmongering conservatives that dominate the public discourse these days.
One of the dissenters from this newish brand of conservatism is David Frum. Although according to Rush, Beck, etc. he's not a real conservative because he doesn't always agree with them, I think Frum has a better handle on what it's going to take to bring the party of Lincoln, TR and Ronald Reagan back from the political wilderness. He understands that merely being against something is no substitute for a positive agenda. Recently on his New Majority website Frum asked his fellow Republicans the question: "What if we win the healthcare fight?" Here's his answer:
For some, the answer is obvious: beat back the president’s proposals, defeat the House bill, stand back and wait for 1994 to repeat itself.
The problem is that if we do that… we’ll still have the present healthcare system. Meaning that we’ll have (1) flat-lining wages, (2) exploding Medicaid and Medicare costs and thus immense pressure for future tax increases, (3) small businesses and self-employed individuals priced out of the insurance market, and (4) a lot of uninsured or underinsured people imposing costs on hospitals and local governments.
We’ll have entrenched and perpetuated some of the most irrational features of a hugely costly and under-performing system, at the expense of entrepreneurs and risk-takers, exactly the people the Republican party exists to champion.
Not a good outcome.
Even worse will be the way this fight is won: basically by convincing older Americans already covered by a government health program, Medicare, that Obama’s reform plans will reduce their coverage. In other words, we’ll have sent a powerful message to the entire political system to avoid at all hazards any tinkering with Medicare except to make it more generous for the already covered.
If we win, we’ll trumpet the success as a great triumph for liberty and individualism. Really though it will be a triumph for inertia. To the extent that anybody in the conservative world still aspires to any kind of future reform and improvement of America’s ossified government, that should be a very ashy victory indeed.
Well said!
4 comments:
Stephen--definitely some good thoughts and, as usual, I find myself in agreement on the need for a better stance than just "I'm against it because I don't like {lefties/Democrats/our current president}". The part of the discussion that is amazing me is the exposure of the lack of any connection between making law and actually having to read and understand the law. I don't think this is just a conservative-skew of the clips I've seen as member after member is asked if they have any idea what is in the 1000 pages and have all kinds of zany answers (we have to move quickly (Specter), you expect me to understand this without a lawyer (that was John Conyers), not enough time, other people have to understand it, not me). To me, the fiscal irresponsibility of that at any level of government is appalling. I wish we had an answer for that, because regardless of healthcare reform, if we are now represented by folks who have no connection with the very job they are supposed to perform, we have extremely serious issues of governance.
To me, that's the heart of the frustration of many.. representation by those who appear to lack rigor in actually struggling to make the best decisions possible for the public they represent.
Good points. It's mindboggling that our representatives would be prepared to vote on something this big without actually having the time or inclination to read the legislation. Unfortunately this is the case with most major legislation. The only people who really know what's in it are the staffers and lobbyists. I agree that it's a source of some of the anger out there, and legitimately so.
very well-said. thanks! it's old, but i just read Frum's piece in Newsweek "Why Rush is wrong"...also good.
That's a good article too. And I say that as someone who used to be a confirmed dittohead. I wonder what happened?
Post a Comment