- Carl Peaslee on Summer Stories Series: "The form is fixed now. It is at the bottom of the post...."
- Kelsey Brown on Letters to Freshmen: The High School Sweetheart: "I believe what she meant was that if you are consumed by your relation..."
- missed the point on Letters to Freshmen: The High School Sweetheart: "I think my name says it..."
- in a relationship on Letters to Freshmen: The High School Sweetheart: "why can't someone feel satisfied with their relationship and be happy ..."
- Jillian on Pimp My Campus: "oooh, new walkway! so excited to see it when I get back!!..."
Obama’s Nixon Moment
The other day I was listening to Sean Hannity on the radio. It seems that “Conservatism in Exile” has come dangerously close to preaching the “He’s not MY president gospel”—something I always thought was reserved for America-hating liberals. But they did get into some interesting questions. Hannity had his pal Dick Morris on his show, who was calmly explaining that Obamacare would result in the mass slaughter of the elderly. Somehow I have my doubts.
Rampant hyperbole aside, I too have my doubts about Obamacare. Namely, how are we going to cut costs while expanding coverage? Those new medical services aren’t going to pay for themselves. Rather than deal with these sorts of concerns directly, the President has chosen to deal in lofty parables:
“There’s going to be some disagreement, but if there’s broad agreement that, in this situation the blue pill works better than the red pill, and it turns out the blue pills are half as expensive as the red pill, then we want to make sure that doctors and patients have that information available to them.”
Cue Morpheus and the Matrix: welcome to the desert of the health care sector. Notably, Obama is advocating the blue pill, the one that makes you “believe… whatever you want to believe.” Costs will be cut. Never mind that Congressional Budget Office report. Look at all those other countries with single payer and more universal systems that have lower costs.
What these macro international comparisons of the percentage of GDP spent on health care across various countries neglect is the very real micro problem of US government’s finances. Simply put, we don’t got money. And if you’ve ever seen one of those scary ass J-shaped charts of entitlement spending, you know it’s only going to get worse. Besides, Americans like consuming things. Why should health care be any different? Maybe we just like consuming health care services and thus we spend more of our aggregate national income. I’m reminded of my elderly aunt who apparently is only capable of talking about her and her friends’ health problems.
What it really comes down to is that those systems are more cost effective because they’re better structured. But it’s not like we can just wave a magic wand and get their health care system. Liberal pundits are worried that delay will mean no reform, but that’s not the case. What they really mean by reform here is change. Delay means a lessened likelihood of substantial change to the status quo (in terms of the governments’ role). But rushing the bill increases the likelihood that not all of the several hundred page monstrosity of legalese argot will be properly vetted. Cough, the stimulus, cough. Rushing means we’re more likely to get a substantial change, but it’s questionable whether that will be for the good—i.e. reform.
The situation is becoming increasingly tenuous for Obama. His original timeline is in shambles. Obamacare is slowly crumbling in the polls; it was only with a desperate this will cost me my presidency push that Obama was able to stop Blue Dogs from killing his pet project. But they still have serious doubts. And that’s not to mention the Senate or the electoral implications for 2010. Yet, in every crisis there is an opportunity.
This could be a Nixon goes to China moment. The public thinks Obama is focused on expanding coverage to the uninsured over cutting costs by over a 3:1 margin. Republicans and Democrats are roughly united in their belief; the discrepancy between the percentage of Republicans and the percentage of Democrats who believe Obama is focused on expanding coverage is within the margin of error. What if Obama jettisoned the public option and the road to single payer in favor of a narrower bill focused on cutting costs and disentangling perverse incentives? This would immediately destroy Republicans’ best argument against him (that he’s an overspending far-left liberal) and would make real his post-partisanship rhetoric in a very tangible way.
The plan could start by eliminating the subsidy to employer-based health care, which just obfuscates the costs and benefits of health insurances. Obama’s wonky head of Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orzag, puts the issue well: “I very firmly believe that capitalism is not founded on excessively high subsidies to private firms. That is what this system delivers right now.” The now defunct wonkish Wyden bill would be another place to look for good ideas.
This could only be a victory for Obama and a much needed boost to his bipartisan credentials. So far, his efforts at congressional bipartisanship have been mostly symbolic:
“Republicans said this White House’s effort at bipartisanship had been one of symbols — presidential calls, invitations to the White House, regular tending by such high level officials as Mr. Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff — rather than substance.
“We hear from them all the time,” Mr. Alexander said. “They said the right things. They are as cordial as you can be.”
More pertinently, how could Republican’s spin this into failure? “Obama caved into our common sense pressure and abandoned his socialistic medicine agenda.” Translated: “Obama failed in his pursuit of a leftist policy agenda and pursued a magnanimous middle ground.” Sounds like a win to me.
Such a move would be the best possible type of compromise: not only will both sides give something up, but it would actually be in the best interest of the nation. Our healthcare costs really are skyrocketing, and there’s a lot we can and should do on that front. But it’s a bit disingenuous to conflate our broken healthcare system vis-à-vis its skyrocketing costs with the social justice question of whether we want universal coverage. For Obama, the question he needs to ask himself is simple: do I care more about my legacy and post-partisanship or liberalism?
More posts by Patrick »
Patrick Atwater
Patrick Atwater is a senior at Claremont McKenna College, pursuing a dual degree in Mathematics and Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE). When not playing football or slaving away at the Rose, he spends his time theorizing about the California Dream, which Abhi is foolish enough to pay him for. He enjoys theoretical politics, skiing, Russian literature, genuine people, not swimming back, happiness, the outdoors, Michael Bay movies, trying new things, island paradises, the works of Amartya Sen, traveling, and making gross overgeneralizations.
Recent
17 Comments
2009-08-12
08:56:03
Won't happen. Not only is Obama hoping to achieve a single pay health care system by stealth, he's doing it one of the most dishonest ways possible: by mocking elderly and concerned voters about "pulling the plug" on grandma.
If you read Obama's books, he believes Clinton gave too much to the Gingrich Republicans and missed the opportunity to create a truly progressive America.
His argument that his public option will be like the postal service should give everyone pause. Yeah, I bet we won't wait in lines. Give me a break.
2009-08-12
10:32:03
Obama is going to become Scrooge overnight and say that he wants to cut, cut, cut... wants to increase the number of uninsured, whilst of course preserving the profit margins of the special interests that make money off people becoming ill? He might as well set up those Death Panels of which Sarah Palin spoke. This would be an amazing betrayal. Nixon's going to China was seen as clever because of its exploiting the Sino-Soviet split for ultimate Cold War advantage. How can Obama justify stabbing the backs of those whom he said he would help? That it's required because of bean counting?
Republicans are very generous with heaping money onto the for-profit health insurance racket, the pharmaceutical industry with the latter allowed to set their prices without negotiation, not to mention money shovelled to suspected murder of federal informers, Erik Prince, and his Blackwater mercenary outfit, and of course the prison industrial complex. They naturally draw the line when it comes to doing something actually useful with government money.
2009-08-12
12:12:43
@Charles
How you can say that Obama wants single-payer health care is beyond me. No one has made a serious effort to bring about such a system during the entire fight over health care reform, and you have yet to substantiate that claim. The misinformation campaign waged by those who are against health care reform has gotten tired. There are legitimate concerns about how we are going to pay for this and how it will be instituted, but you didn't voice a single one of them.
@Patrick
We can cut costs and expand coverage. Over $700 billion is spent each year in the United States of procedures that are either not needed or are harmful. This includes invasive treatment and over medication, among other things. By refusing to pay for such treatments until health care providers can demonstrate their effectiveness, we can cut costs. Also, because who gets treatment is based almost entirely on one's ability to pay, we see more expensive (and superfluous) treatments being dolled out for the insured while the uninsured can't receive the basic preventative care they need
2009-08-12
12:55:24
@Andrew,
Sorry, Andrew, but you're absolutely wrong about Obama and a single-payer health care system and I would appreciate it if you would stop telling me and others what is a "legitimate concern." Let me substantiate those claims, as you are an ideologue and likely only read the left-leaning blogosphere. Truthfully, the only thing that has been tired in this and most every other debate we've had is fact checking you. That's OK, I don't mind it, but the onus is usually on the person that wants to change the status quo and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't malign people who have a genuine disagreement and have actually looked at the facts of the bill. Thanks.
Just watch this video right here and it does all my proving for me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ-6ebku3_E
In the video, you'll see Jacob S. Hacker wants a single payer system and has advised Democrat candidates and that numerous members of the Senate and the House have called for it, including one who admitted that the public option was a steal means of getting rid of a private market. In time, we'll hear, as sure as rain falls from the sky, that the government needs to get more involved due to increasing health care costs once Obama's public option goes through.
In this video, you'll see Barney Frank admits that he's going to get a single payer system. http://www.singlepayeraction.org/blog/?p=1257. Here's what he says on camera, “If we get a good public option it could lead to single payer,” Frank said. “The best way to get single payer — the only way — is to have a public option and demonstrate the strength of its power.”
Obama himself said he supported a single-payer health care system in 2003 and suggested as much in 2009. You can watch the video here, if you don't believe me. http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/02/quote-of-the-day-544/
In 2002, in his regular column for the Hyde Park Herald, Obama wrote, "I have been one of the leaders in the General Assembly on universal health care as the chief State Senate sponsor of the Cardinal Bernardin Amendment, which would change Illinois to a single-payer system where everyone received health benefits."
He ran, in part, on his record in the Illinois State Senate. Are we to overlook this? He has also stated that there are "countries where a single payer system works well." I'd like to know which countries those are from Obama. In the past, he's said it was Canada, but Canadians have been changing their law to allow more private competition. They've been going the opposite way Obama wants to go!
Forgive me, but I tend to take Obama at his word. And I know enough economics to know that when you have a public option, it tends to lead to less investment in the private sector. Higher education is a perfect example of how government involvement tends to increase costs, rather than curtail them. The cost of higher education escalates as the government has gotten more involved with subsidized loans, grants. etc.
As for "refusing to pay for such treatments until heath care providers..." you basically explain yourself why so many of us fear that a system to control American health care will lead to government rationing.
Who are you to argue that a treatment is "superfluous"? When I have a choice between paying for a supposedly "unnecessary" test -- just who is going to make that determination I haven't a clue -- and risking not paying for a necessary test, I think I'm not alone in choosing the first option every time. Americans should have the choice to spend their money as they see fit on their own health.
As for the idea that the uninsured cannot receive "basic preventative care", I would just point out that that's because of the mandates imposed by special interests which drive up the cost of health insurance. It's simply too costly to insure such people. But the idea that they do not receive care is unfounded. It is federal law for a hospital to treat anyone who arrives at its doorstep. Certainly this leads to increased costs as the poor (or the lazy or the young or illegal immigrants) use emergency rooms as their primary care.
2009-08-12
13:19:31
@ Charles,
Pot calling the Kettle and all that, when you say that Bluebond is an idealogue who only reads the left-wing blogosphere?
Truth be told, many times you come across as someone like that, albeit a right-leaning one. So let's not pretend that one side has some moral high ground over the other. It doesn't suit you.
2009-08-12
14:07:25
Au contraire, my friend, I truly read everything that I can get my hands on and try to make up my own mind. (It helps that I have rather chronic insomnia and so I can read everything nearly everyday on RealClearPolitics.)
Not only do I read the columns and thoughts of those with whom I disagree politically, I also read some of their books. Most recently, I've been reading The Life You Can Save by Peter Singer and I finished Robert Reich's Supercapitalism. Earlier in the year, I read two books by Jeffrey Sachs and Hot, Flat, and Crowded by Thomas Friedman. I have read both of Obama's books -- Dreams from My Father Is Better, i.m.h.o., and yes, I even read Bill Clinton's My Life. (I haven't read "It Takes A Village." Should I?)
I'm sorry if I come across as exclusively right-leaning individual -- I make no apologies for being right-leaning -- but I'm at least well-informed by what the other side writes and thinks.
But let's try not to focus on me, but on the points I made in the previous comment. Liberals, please take up your president's plea that we have a informed dialogue. I'm ready when you are.
2009-08-12
17:18:18
@Charles
I don't really have time to respond to of your comments and videos, but I will take a moment to defend myself and address a few things.
I am not sure how you concluded that I only read the left-wing blogosphere. Have you been checking my computer's history? Dammit. I knew I should have changed my password.
Insisting that I am not informed is not a counter argument, either. I am familiar with all of the information you presented above, but that doesn't change the legislation that has been proposed. No single-payer system is currently on the table. Could one be discussed in the future? Maybe. But we aren't there, yet. Some favor the idea, others don't. I will cross that bridge when it is time to do so. I want the best legislation we can get right now, and I am not wiling to do nothing for fear that future legislation might go further than the proposed legislation.
As for your criticisms of my use of the word "superfluous," I think I can address that. I am not the one who set the definition of superfluous, and I don't mean to claim that I have the supreme authority to decide what is need and what is not needed. There is, however, ample evidence to suggest that over medicate our population and provide treatments that are by no means needed. A nice breakdown of that information is available in a report by Ellen-Marie Whelan and Sonia Sekhar, which you can find at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/07/costly_and_dangerous.html
Finally, no one cares what you are reading. Sorry about your insomnia, but claiming that you read stacks and stacks of books doesn't make you more intelligent or more articulate. I will assess your arguments based upon the information presented, and I hope others will do the same.
2009-08-12
18:12:39
You both look like idiots at this point. It doesn't matter who looks more immature, but it really doesn't matter. Andrew, when you fight with children it makes you look like one.
2009-08-12
23:26:29
@Stop and Please,
I don't mind having argument with Andrew. Facts bear me out.
2009-08-12
18:19:30
Can we have more pissing matches between Andrew and Charles? I want the world to know this is what cmc has to offer.
2009-08-12
18:33:27
Trust me. I spent the 20 minutes after I posted a response wondering why I bothered.
2009-08-12
23:25:44
Way to elevate the dialogue. Andrew says that he's not an ideologue and then he goes and cites American Progress. Right, not an ideologue. Uh huh.
2009-08-13
04:02:33
Glenn beck claims to read a lot of books and has even written a few and he's as crazy as they get!
2009-08-13
15:02:01
[...] site of Claremont McKenna College (where TNN’s Jack Pitney hangs his hat), Patrick Atwater writes that since President Obama’s healthcare plan is on the ropes, he would be best served to [...]
2009-08-14
17:14:24
I'm going to go back to addressing the article, and hopefully give some constructive reasons why I actually disagree with it.
Simply cutting costs will not accomplish what all of what Obama wants, which includes what the public perceives him to want: expanding coverage to the uninsured. I agree that cutting costs is a highly important, noble goal. However, peoples' lives are being lost because they do not have medical insurance, which is why he (and I) think it so important that we focus on expanding it. If Obama was simply interested in winning a political victory, he wouldn't even have made the push on healthcare in the first place -- with all the mess our economy is in, healthcare discussion could have fallen by the wayside. Furthermore, if the public perception is that Obama is focused on expanding healthcare, it's very easy to spin that into a GOP political victory -- "Obama wanted a public option, but our campaigning prevented Congress from passing it. Ensure that it doesn't come close again, vote for us in 2010." Note, it's only possible for them to spin it because Obama put his neck out, he could have held back and there would have been no spin.
I also agree that other countries' healthcare systems are better structured. That does not mean we cannot adopt their structures.
As far as bipartisanship goes, it's impossible to achieve when the other side has a complete philosophical rejection of your approach. Yes, the stimulus could have been more properly vetted. But when the GOP's position is that there should be NO stimulus, what are the Dems supposed to do? Pick the number they like and then cut it in half? That's a poor understanding of bipartisanship, and ignoring the reality of a majority. Bipartisanship on the stimulus would be giving constructive advice about the best ways to spend the stimulus money, not simply yelling, "No stimulus!" When a whole party decides they will vote against the bill no matter what, it is much harder to vet the bill. Maybe if the GOP decided to recognize it would pass, and then offered advice, we'd be better off. They decided not to think about the bill at all.
2009-08-18
19:28:12
Pity Pat, I appreciate your article, even if I disagree with much of it.
I'd like to go to Tom's comment for a moment that "lives are being lost" here and that universal coverage is a if not the critical issue. Occasionally we must take a deep breath, stop the wonky talk and look at this on a human level. Let's remember for a second that at the end of the day this is about people, fellow Americans, living longer, healthier lives.
Beyond this, expanding coverage to all Americans doesn't have its roots solely in some touchy feely liberal need to help out the poor folks; America has to protect its human capital. Healthier people are more productive people, in fact so much healthier that according to more than one study the economic value of foregone health by the uninsured is double the cost of expanding health care to cover everybody, even when we consider that people with insurance generate higher medical costs by utilizing the system more often. That's a no brainer - lets get people healthy and put them to work.
And you know what, let's talk about me for a minute! I want everyone insured because in a month I'm going to be turning twenty one, and I'll be off my parents' insurance. That means I have to pay for insurance, and my insurance is more expensive because there are uninsured who can usually only pay a quarter to a third of what they owe. In fact, Pity Pat and Tom, when we graduate in a year and have to be real people, we are going to be helping pick up the tab for two-thirds of the cost of uncompensated care used by the uninsured in our higher premiums. Maybe that would be okay with me, maybe, if we didn't have an opportunity right now to fix it by making sure everyone has coverage.
No wonder people think Obama is talking about expanding coverage. He IS. And it is an essential part of creating a health care system that works. Yes we need to worry about affordability, and yes we should disentangle "perverse incentives", but some of the money is in making sure everyone, not only those that can afford to pay, is healthy. We may have to jettison the public option, even though it would be helping better the system through the very force of competition that conservatives do so love. That's fine - compromise is the American way. However, passing health care reform without universal coverage is like being the tallest midget. Or making fun of Charles in a room full of Young Dems. It misses the point.
Last comment. When will we see this chance again? It has been fifty years since LBJ and the last real movement on health care. I don't want to see this fail and spend another fifty years being the only wealthy nation that doesn't guarantee essential care to its citizens.
Thanks for listening
2009-08-25
15:15:17
[...] 2009-2010 academic year. You can write on topics ranging from Thursday night’s debauchery to Sunday morning’s talkshows, from craigslist safety to indie rock, from what you ate yesterday to what to want to eat tomorrow. [...]