I doubt that the Republicans will be able to stop the health plan. Compared to 1993 Obama has two big advantages. First he has a far more experienced team with Daschle in charge of health care compared to a very inexperienced Hillary in 93. Secondly the Democratic majority in 93 had a lot of fairly conservative Southerners; the current Democratic majority is much more cohesive. There may be a few compromises but I would bet on a very solid health care bill passing Congress next year.
Also, more people are familiar with the horror stories now due to stuff like Sicko and all those testimonial-type TV commercials . Fifteen years ago it might have been easier to deny there’s a problem, but you can’t do that now. The debate isn’t going to be whether the government should intervene, but how it should intervene. So far, only the Democrats have a plan that could work.
No, in that first sentence, the word “irregardless” isn’t used at all; it’s mentioned.
Back on topic, I think the Republican party is in a lose-lose situation here. If Obama’s health plan goes through, then people will indeed see that it isn’t so bad after all. But if the Republicans try to block it, they’ll almost certainly fail, and then people will not only see that Obama’s plan isn’t so bad after all, but they’ll also see that the Republicans are so bad after all. Their best bet, so far as I can see, is to embrace it, so they can share in the credit if it succeeds, and also build up some credibility for working across the aisle, while saving political capital for issues that are more important to them. If you can’t beat 'em, join 'em.
All I know is that if Democrats want to truly land a death-blow to the Republican party, they better make sure UHC is a huge success. If it is, then we’ll have a public that is essentially open to government involvement in their lives in a positive way. If people are convinced that government is good, then the GOP will essentially need to re-invent their message somehow.
It’s far different from 1993 in the way that the whole system of American Capitalism is being called into question. The recession of 1992 was nowhere near as devastating. Personally, I think Bush sealed the fate of the GOP and the nation forever when he decided to get the government involved in a big way with Fannie and Freddie and AIG etc. It’s now been accepted that the economy requires massive intervention on the part of the government now. That’s going to be hard to undo. If the big corporations can get it, why not the people too? It’s going to be hard to explain why.
What’s really funny about the GOP is that people are really starting to question what American Capitalism means. The fallout of the financial crisis is going to leave Americans with a lot of questions about what went wrong and what we need to do to fix it. And the Republican’s tactic of calling Obama a marxist and mocking the idea of redistributing wealth are pretty senseless. Now is the time for them to make sense, not stick to the old talking points. People want answers, first and foremost. The GOP has never been about complex issues. They’ve always been about black and white. This situation requries a more complicated and nuanced explanation. It needs to be thought through. How quickly the GOP catches on to that will determine their future.
Bottom line: people are scared and confused. People want to be comforted. And the way to make people feel comfortable surely isn’t “let’s continue down the same path and hope things get better.”
UHC will pass in one form or another. If the GOP can pull it together quickly enough to get a new direction they might be able to make their mark on it. Otherwise I think that UHC will take away a large part of the GOP’s ammo.
Another scenario:
Republican party unity collapses, and congressional politics reverts to the 1945-1994 era (or 1800-1994 era: I’m not sure). That is, some Republicans vote for health care reform while others oppose depending upon how their state or district polls.
Will those Republicans who vote for universal health care be denounced as RINOs? Not too much, I suspect. Tax cut shills such as the Club for Growth care only a little about spending. And the Dobson crew will focus on women’s health care and obstetrics services.
Ah, but it won’t be: it can’t be. American health care has been a huge success by any absolute measure, but we can still treat both the insured and uninsured more efficiently.
Look at the Veteran’s health care system. It has terrific outcomes, statistically speaking, but I trust that there a bucketfuls of anecdotes that our media chatterers can glom on to. And let’s face it, reports of governmental inefficiency outrage the citizenry, while private sector waste earns only shrugs.
No it is not a huge success by any absolute measure. 47 million Americans have no health care. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/29/47_million_americans_are_uninsured/ That is more than 15 percent. If it were only one or two percent, I’d agree with you. 15 percent is a failure.
No, 47 million Americans can get into an emergency room, so they do have health care. They also face bankruptcy of course and will probably skimp on primary care.
Yeah, it’s a failure. But it’s also a success in the sense that life expectancy has improved over the past generation.
1980: 74
1990: 75
2003: 77
Now other nations have equivalent health outcomes while spending half as much as a share of GDP. And the employer-provided insurance system is wrecking the economy. But medical technology has nonetheless provided health gains both in the US and in other developed nations.
Anyway, my point is that I would expect universal health care to provide superior health at lower cost but also a lot more complaining from the media.
But you originally said an absolute success. Good health care involves more than emergency care. You are correct that anyone can walk into an emergency room and get care and bankruptcy. But if you are dying of a slow cancer, they will release you after the emergency is passed and you will get to the point of no return. This applies to cancer and many other diseases. That can’t be passed off as absolutely successful with a straight face. The US has the lowest life expectancy of Western nations, largely as a result of poor coverage.
US Life Expectancy: Worse than Portugal, better than the Czech Republic
Actually I said the US health system was a success by absolute measures (improving aggregate health) but not relative ones. Or anyway, that’s what I was trying to get at.
BTW, I’ve dug up some data and my previous remarks have been superseded. The US’s life expectancy at birth truly is at the bottom of the higher income country list, which is pathetic since we have the highest per person health spending. The case for health care reform seems overwhelming.
We’re Number 24! We’re Number 24!
That’s a scary line. Especially when you say that government involvement created this mess (“I think Bush sealed the fate of the GOP and the nation forever when he decided to get the government involved in a big way with Fannie and Freddie and AIG etc.”) and, judging from the rest of what you wrote, more government involvment is an inevitability.
Well, actually I think an incompetent and ideologically blinkered administration caused this mess, and not an amorphous “Government”.
With respect, you may want to rethink your risk assessment procedures.
Well, support for Fannie and Freddie was bi-partisan. Clinton supported it. Bush supported. An R and D congresses supported it. Hell, FDR created it and its only grown since then. Elected officials of both parties were the ones who were pushing for the ‘Every American deserves a home’ policy. I besiege you not to think that this mess was created from 2000 onward.
P.S.
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070718153509.aspx
“The Kaiser Family Foundation, a liberal non-profit frequently quoted by the media, puts the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 13.9 million and 8.2 million. That is a much smaller figure than the media report.”
11.05 (average between the high and low estimate)/ 300 (off the head guess at US pop.)=.03683=3.683%. We’re moving closer to that 1-2% Stone. That is, if you agree with the above cite and the premises it assumes. Take it for what you will.
Sorry for the double post. I thought this was pretty funny though.
‘‘These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis,’’ said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ‘‘The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.’’
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
‘‘I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,’’ Mr. Watt said.
Cite?
I don’t think you’re in any position to ask.
This is GD. I’d like Der Trihs to support his statement.
So asks the Randian who thinks that theweak should perish.
And my “cite” is the last 30-odd years ( at least ) of Republican behavior. Would you like a “cite” for the sky being blue too, or for rocks being harder than air ?
In other words, you have no cite and were talking out your ass in GD, which is what you always do. I’m not a member of the “Republican base.”
My cite is DECADES of Republican behavior, where they have consistently shown zero concern for the welfare of others, and opposed any attempt to help others. You are the one making the bizarre claim.