"If you think Scripture is telling you what you want to hear, take a long, hard second look."
- The Ancient Mariner
Monday, March 15, 2010
The general buzz is that passing this healthcare overhaul will be politically disastrous. It is the worst career moves they could make.
But they're still plowing ahead, either oblivious or bullheaded.
And while I think it's bad policy, and while I don't share their politics in general anyway, I kinda have to admire them for sticking to what they think is the right thing to do, consequences be danged.
I wish more politicians, including the ones actually doing the right thing, had that kind of stubbornness of conscience.
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/5886.
Comments on "Tell You What I Like About Them Liberals":
2. Shrode
- 03/15/2010 2:07 pm CDT
Do the Republicans want this to pass so that they can defeat Democrats later?
Here's a
(liberal?) comment on what's going on
:
One of the more commonly heard Republican talking points lately has been advice to the Democratic majority: if health care reform passes, and the majority delivers a historic victory, it will be awful news for Democratic candidates.
Yesterday, there was no shortage of Republicans giving Dems heartfelt advice on this. Everyone from Michael Steele to Mitch McConnell to Lamar Alexander all urged Democrats to do themselves a favor and choose failure over success.
3. Jared
- 03/15/2010 2:16 pm CDT
Yeah, I was sort of inspired by a news article about Obama responding to Mitch McConnell's "warnings." So I know they're not exactly thinking the Republicans are exactly looking out for Democrats' best interests. But the Dems have seen the poll numbers on this issue, not to mention the President's declining approval ratings.
But maybe they think all that's smoke and mirrors.
That's why I kinda said they could be doing this out of obliviousness, as much as bullheadedness. Perhaps both?
Given the poll numbers they can't really think the public wants this. I think more than likely they think the public needs this.
The bottom line, though, is that regardless of polls, they genuinely seem to think this is the right thing to do. The President said as much, remarking that doing what's right trumps doing what's political.
Now, any other time I'd be inclined to think every politician always does what's political, but unless they're blind, they've gotta see this is not the will of the people. But they think it's right, so they're gonna do it.
I find that kind of admirable.
4. Bill
- 03/15/2010 5:43 pm CDT
My sense is that they do believe it's the right thing to do, although the world-weary cynical side of me tells me that part of the reason they think it's right is because it will move our body politic irreversibly (my belief) toward a more socialistic, government-centric, top-down kind of governance. It's very hard to undo an entitlement this big. The "conservatives" in countries with more socialistic economies can only now argue that they'll make the system run more efficiently, not that they'll be able to undo the system and devolve power back to the localities.
In other words, passage of this bill will go a long way toward cementing a left-of-center governing stance. And that benefits Democrats long term.
So, yes, I think they think it's the right thing. But I don't think they think that for the right reasons, if you follow me.
5. Bill
- 03/15/2010 5:49 pm CDT
On a similar note, I think that GWB and the Republicans in 2006 who supported the Surge in Iraq also did what they thought was right, even though they paid dearly for it in the next two elections.
Sometimes politicians put politics, well, not to the side, but slightly out of their center of focus.
6. Bill
- 03/15/2010 6:46 pm CDT
Then I'd be right with you in respecting that person.
Me again . . .
I don't know. I do respect someone doing what they think is right. But I work in the business world, and it takes more than "believing it to be right" for something to be successful. There are a lot of unwise moves made in the business world (note: I'm not referring to anything specific at my company).
If you're wise and you believe what you're doing is right, I can respect that. If what you're doing is dumb and/or disastrous . . . I'm not a big fan.
7. Jared
- 03/15/2010 6:54 pm CDT
Bill, but given their assumptions, the results we consider disastrous they wouldn't consider disastrous. It's not the same as int he business world wehre, for instance, even if someone thinks they're doing the right thing, they recognize they screwed up when money is lost, etc.
The things we fear will happen as a result of this bill are considered a "Win" by the Democrats.
Unless I'm misunderstanding your point.
8. Evan
- 03/15/2010 7:35 pm CDT
I go along with Bill's belief in #4, and I think I can go along with Jared in #7 with a caveat.
I too think a lot of bad things will happen as a result of this bill, especially in the longer term. I also believe that a majority of Democrats honestly think some of those same things are positive or a 'win' for society, since they value perceived economic equality more than individual excellence or freedom.
However, I think a sizable number of the ruling Democrats know that this bill will overall be a 'loss' for society, but don't care because it will be a 'win' for them politically as a member of the ruling class. For example, most of the leaders of North Korea, East Germany, the USSR, etc. knew their policies and system of governance was creating economic stagnation and political repression. In many cases, you just had to look across the border to see the evidence of a much better life for their citizens. Yet, they utterly rejected change because they would, in essence, rather rule in hell than serve in heaven.
Of course, such politicians will never admit that is their objective. Instead, they claim their heart is pure and they only want what's best for society.
9. Bill
- 03/15/2010 7:41 pm CDT
The things we fear will happen as a result of this bill are considered a "Win" by the Democrats.
Well, partly. I don't think most democrats (well, politicians, but especially democrats) really understand economics that well and I think they don't expect this thing to explode the deficit beyond it's already smithereens status quo. That being said, I don't expect them to ever admit that this is what did it.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle rarely admit they made a mistake.
Evan, as usual, I agree w you.
10. Andrew
- 03/15/2010 11:18 pm CDT
I (basically) agree with most of what's been said.
Health Care Reform is, for many (me included), a moral issue. We disagree on the manner of reform, but it's hard for me to believe that the status quo is morally defensible. So, I think many in Congress believe they are doing the right thing by the country, whatever the political implications are. This includes House Democrats who refuse to vote for the bill because they believe the bill doesn't go far enough.
On the other hand, I think many Democrats believe they are past the point of no return. Backing out and doing nothing would be political suicide. The American public is incredibly fickle. The economy is down, and we've been discussing this reform for the better part of a year. People are sick of it. Politicians know that any time the economy is bad, people take out their anger on whatever party is in power. They know that the public isn't very patient, and issues, domestic and foreign, tend to lose support over time. They also know that people hate governments they see as ineffective.
Supporting the bill may be risky, but if the economy bounces back by November or at any time during the next two years, public opinion will swing back somewhat in favor of the ruling party. The realistic choice right now is to either try and pass the bill or let it die. Starting over isn't impossible, but it is, for all intents and purposes, politically infeasible. If the Democrats let it die, they will get slaughtered in November. If they pass it, they may still get slaughtered, but at least they will have accomplished something. Whether that something is good or not is another issue entirely.
From a purely political standpoint (as in, I'm not endorsing this bill), I don't believe passing the bill is any worse than the alternative.
11. Bill
- 03/16/2010 11:11 am CDT
One question - why is starting over politically infeasable? I think there would be lots of support from a lot of segments of the political spectrum (far left excluded) for starting over and perhaps taking a more incremental, realistic, lower-cost approach to reform.
12. Scott Roche
- 03/16/2010 1:04 pm CDT
For example, most of the leaders of North Korea, East Germany, the USSR, etc. knew their policies and system of governance was creating economic stagnation and political repression.
Did you just compare the Dems to socialists/communists? That's pretty tired right there.
I also believe that a majority of Democrats honestly think some of those same things are positive or a 'win' for society, since they value perceived economic equality more than individual excellence or freedom.
Maybe we think that this won't effect individual excellence or freedom. What we have right now hasn't been improved by either of these things. Objectively our current health care situation stinks. I think that's in large part to letting the insurance companies have their "freedom".
13. Evan
- 03/16/2010 4:22 pm CDT
Maybe we think that this won't effect individual excellence or freedom. What we have right now hasn't been improved by either of these things.
Most of the amazing advances in modern medicine over the last 100 years have largely been made in capitalist systems (majority in the US), with inventors, doctors, and companies at least partly pursuing profit as their motive. I don't see how anyone can honestly believe that all the vaccines, antibiotics, medical tests, surgical procedures, medical devices, etc. would exist today if government bureaucrats had always been in control of health care.
Objectively our current health care situation stinks.
I disagree. I think our health care system is the best in the history of man, and largely the best in the world today. What stinks is the health of far too many US citizens, and the resulting cost of that poor health. We have far too many people who abuse their bodies, be it through diet, obesity, drugs, alcohol, smoking, lack of exercise, promiscuity, etc. Yes, there are people that still get sick that take good care of themselves, but they are clearly not the main driver of exploding health care costs. Random/accidental/genetic health care costs could easily be born by US society if not for the exploding preventable costs. What can't be supported over the long term is far too many people not taking reasonable care of their bodies, then demanding that medical providers 'fix' them, while transferring the cost of those fixes onto other people.
I think that's in large part to letting the insurance companies have their "freedom".
The insurance companies profits are a tiny part of health care costs in this country. In fact, my own health insurance policy is with Blue Cross which already is a nonprofit in my state, and the rates are similar to any other for profit insurance company.
Insurance companies are actually weak at encouraging better health behavior, but they at least currently provide some 'sticks' for unhealthy behavior. I want my insurance company to be able to screen people with poor health habits. Why should people that have paid premiums without fail for years and worked to maintain their health now be forced to pay much higher premiums to subsidize those who didn't?
We don't do with with auto insurance. If you are under age 25, you pay a lot for auto insurance, particularly if you have a speeding ticket or accident on your record. We reward people that are safer drivers with lower rates as they cost less. We penalize people that cause more accidents and higher costs with higher insurance rates. This system of sticks and rewards not only moves the costs more towards those people who create them, but also incentives people appropriately. I know in my early 20's I was terrified of getting speeding tickets because I knew friends who had gotten them and could no longer afford their auto insurance.
----------
That all said, I do agree with Andrew's point that providing health care is a moral issue. No matter how badly someone behaves, we Christians are required by Christ's example to forgive and take care of our neighbors. But that is an mandate on a personal level, not a government level. Helping ones neighbor fosters pity, compassion, and gratitude - all good things. Government mandated 'charity' through forced redistribution largely fosters inefficiency, corruption, entitlement, and resentment - all bad things.
15. Scott Roche
- 03/16/2010 6:35 pm CDT
Most of the amazing advances in modern medicine over the last 100 years have largely been made in capitalist systems ...bureaucrats had always been in control of health care.
Okay, a few things, I said what we have right now isn't good. By that I mean the level of care that even people with insurance have access to. That doesn't have a lot to do with research (a large percentage of which I believe is gov' funded). I'm not advocating, nor do I believe anyone in the gov't is advocating that gov't control all R&D or the pharmaceutical comapnies. So you're attacking a straw man.
I disagree. I think our health care system is the best in the history of man, and largely the best in the world today.
What are you basing that on objectively?
What stinks is the health of far too many US citizens, and the resulting cost of that poor health...transferring the cost of those fixes onto other people.
You make some good points here, most of which get back to our cultures stance on medicine. We've focused more on curing rather than preventing disease. I think this is actually enabled by the treat and street attitude of a lot of doctors and the way I've seen most insurance work, but most of that's cultural and won't change whether or health coverage system changes hands or not.
Comparing auto insurance to health insurance works to a degree and I do think that in some ways penalizing people that don't take care of themselves might work. We do that with life insurance after all. But then you have people like my wife who have health problems unrelated to how they treat themselves. She has diabetes and has had since she's six. The older she gets the more health problems she'll have, regardless of how well she takes care of herself (of course she does have the responsibility of taking care of herself the best she can).
Point being, the analogy only works so far. And since everyone who gets behind a wheel is, I believe, legally required to have auto insurance the analogy further breaks down. We aren't required to have health insurance. That's good since most people can't afford basic health insurance unless they're employed by someone who provides it. That's a big part of the problem.
You're the second person this week who said that gov't sponsored charity is bad and I don't buy it from him or you. While I'll agree that personal charity is ideal and gov't sponsored charity is less than ideal, we're not talking charity here. Healthcare isn't about lifting up someone who's down. It's about ensuring that all of our citizens have access to the best healthcare we can provide. That's not the way things are right now. I think we can get there, but not how we're doing it now.
Leave a Comment:
I'm not so sure from the little bit that I've read that they actually believe they are sacrificing their careers. That they believe it's the "right thing" is probably true, but in light of the fact that the Republicans are issuing press statements couched as "career advice" to the democrats, like "Don't do this, it will hurt your careers", such comments seem to the Democrats to be self-serving and dishonest. And now the White House is issuing "career advice" right back to the Republicans.
Both sides are acting like the public is on their side. Now whether they believe that's true, I don't know...but in my opinion, I think they both think they will win this one in the court of public opinion.
It cracks me up, when a Dem or Rep will attack an opponent as being "outside the mainstream". It's like they think most people agree with them...
I'd like to see a politician stand up and say, "I know most of America disagrees with me on this, but I know I'm right. Here I stand."
Then I'd be right with you in respecting that person.