By John Ballard
The Wonk Room replies to Jane Hamsher.On the whole, Hamsher is right to argue that the Senate bill is a deeply flawed piece of legislation which, as Paul Krugman observes, �we�ll spend years if not decades fixing it.� In fact, �with few exceptions, sweeping initiatives in the U.S. system start small, are often flawed, and then are expanded, sometimes improved, sometimes not.� Medicare began as smaller program that was expanded to cover �hospice benefits, mammograms and pap smears to detect cancer, and most recently, under the Republicans, prescription drugs.�
Fixing something that�s broken is better than not having anything to fix. Buying a fixer-up home is more appealing than remaining homeless for the next 10 to 20 years. In time, you�ll be able afford to change the tile in the bathroom or fix the leaky roof patch, but for the time being you�ll have a place to sleep, eat, and keep warm. A newer house would have caused less problems, but it � like the Senate health care bill � was simply out of reach.
As you no John I originally opposed the bill and thought it should be killed. I have changed my mind. There are a few positives but most of all I think it's passage is necessary for Obama's reelection in 2012 and while I'm not crazy about him at least one or two of the fascists on the Supreme court will step down about that time and I don't want to see a Republican president or a Republican controlled Senate.
ReplyDeleteThanks for that.
ReplyDeleteMy own attitude is barely tepid but like you said the alternatives are worse without it. The big picture is that the states have produced a really inefficient and uneven landscape of several important issues, usually with good intentions. But the time has come, as in other cases, for federal oversight. That really pisses off a lot of isolationist, states rights types, but I'm sorry. Without federal intrusion many problems would go on forever.
Two important issues remain in that will be as contentious or worse than health care reform. Abortion and immigration are the other two. What we are watching now is only a preview of things to come. But if he pulls it off, Barack Obama will be remembered as one of the most significant leaders of his generation, leaving behind not one, but three "starter homes," ready for generations that follow to invest sweat equity.
I opposed it and still oppose it. Living in a home with flawed foundations which is designed to slowly crush its occupants isn't a good idea. This also isn't a starter home, it's a big, badly built institution, with a bunch of prisoners inside.
ReplyDeleteThe bill sucks, it isn't going to be notably improved, and it is going to be unpopular.
Oh well, I should know by now that America and Americans are constitutionally incapable of doing what is necessary in order to save their own asses.
I'm all for starter homes, but i'm a little curious about the fine print of the mortgage. And given the current vagaries of the housing market, i'm more than a little worried about finding ourselves in a upside down mortgage a few years down the road.
ReplyDeleteStrikes me that any analysis right now is premature. The Bill - whatever eventually gets passed after conferencing - could end up being hung around Obama & Democrats necks for a generation as Matt Taibbi said last Friday on the Moyers show. Making any definite statement about family savings from exchanges for example seems pretty tenacious just now, they may work or they may not. Good not to deny anyone access but does it did guarantee that insurance rates for existing cancer patient won't be exorbitant or the co-pays off the Richter Scale. (I also hate analogies in our age of spin. Though some a cute, they allow even the bright to forget to think, I think.) Also comparing Medicare, a gov't run scheme, to a private for profit insurance scheme seems just bizarrely funny. It leaves you with so many questions.
ReplyDeleteI understand Ron's hold-the-nose strategy for voting for the Bill, similar to Robert Kuttner's (again Bill Moyers Show) to save Obama potentially. Also the Bill may have all the goods things that will currently be spun about it which would be nice I'd think.
One thing about saving Obama as a preventative measure from more rigid conservatives on the SCOTUS, Sotomayor may have been it. I suspect any new appointments will have to struggle through a much different Senate come next November & Mr. Obama, barring an earth-shattering character change, will likely avoid a fight over everything except defence funding.
a compelling argument, without a doubt.
ReplyDeletebut for me, it rests on a flawed assumption--that the federal government will actually regulate the medical-industrial complex for the benefit of the public. i just don't think it's credible to think so since they can't manage any other profit (rent) seeking industry.