The Status Quo Vs. Imperfect Change
Yesterday, in a post about private health insurers cherry-picking and misrepresenting polling data to prevent the passage of health care reform in Congress, I wrote the following:
Here is the bottom line: Every one of the dire scenarios being predicted by the private insurance lobby and their friends in Congress for a public health care option is already happening — and worse, has been going on for decades already. We are facing — have been facing, for many years — a crisis in our ability to provide health care, both in terms of availability and cost, that is staggeringly serious. Those lawmakers in Congress, both Republican and Democratic, who are suggesting that their operatives “do anything to slow down health care reform,” who are trying to kill the reform package now ready to be voted on, who want to “start from scratch” in the fall, when there will be “plenty of time” to come up with something more acceptable to the private insurance industry and big business in general, are being incredibly irresponsible. Inaction right now is worse than imperfection.
This morning, I saw this op-ed, by Washington Post business columnist, Steven Pearlstein, titled “Imperfect Health Reform Still Beats the Status Quo.” Here are the first few paragraphs:
Among the range of options for health-care reform, there’s one that is sure to raise your taxes, increase your out-of-pocket medical expenses, swell the federal deficit, leave more Americans without insurance and guarantee that wages will remain stagnant.
That’s the option of doing nothing, letting things continue to drift as they have for the past two decades as we continue to search in vain for the perfect plan that would let everyone have everything they want and preserve everything they already have while getting someone else to pay for it.
So the next time you hear someone throwing a hissy fit because health reform might raise taxes on some people, or steer people into managed care, or require small businesses to contribute $2 a day for each employee’s coverage, just remember to ask yourself: And that’s compared with what?
Ezra Klein has the transcript of an interview from earlier today in which Nancy Pelosi said that “health-care reform would pass the House and that it would include a public plan.”
opinions powered by SendLove.to
14 Responses to “The Status Quo Vs. Imperfect Change”
I don't see the reason to rush through a health care bill that will change our way of life and cost trillions of dollars. Gee…why not take a couple more months and try to make it a little better? We know we can't get perfect, but well thought out and debated would be nice.
People complained about Bush rushing off to war…rush to save the banking system…and now the same people are complaining about NOT rushing a 2 trillion dollar bill through the Senate? Excuse me?
Iit's not “rushing” when proponents of health care reform have been trying to get it for three decades at least, shannon.
We >b>need health care reform — desperately. We did not need Bush's war — at all.
I think this dovetails well with what Jazz wrote, about the importance of putting forth some good faith attempt to create a plan, as opposed to doing nothing and only being “against”. I think the republican law-makers are getting paid enough to come up with something more than a non-strategy which only preserves a steadily falling status quo. In my mind it really all comes down to what kind of America we want to live in, one in which we have a shot at being a united, halfway civilized country or one that is doomed to division and inequality of opportunity.
We need health care reform — desperately. We did not need Bush's war — at all.
We also do not need a bad health care reform plan. I think it is possible to do a good job on health care reform, but there is no reason to rush it through. I've listened to Obama's speeches including the one today at Cleveland Clinic. He's long on promises but short on specifics.
I think it's clear enough that many of Obama's detractors are hoping for healthcare reform to be shoved aside long enough for the momentum to subside, then we can return to the same old same old.
The major problem with this analysis is the false assumption that it's a choice beteen “imperfect” change and the status quo. It's a choice between disastrous and potentially more damaging than the status quo change and the status quo. If it was just imperfect, a lot of us would be jumping on board, figuring that we could iron out the wrinkles later. That is not, in my opinion, the case. I'd rather have no reform than something that could make an already bad situation far worse.
Unfortunately, as I noted in my article for this afternoon, the Republicans are failing to step up to the plate and at least give us a better plan, whether it comes up to a vote or not. They definitely need to do that to show us that they are serious players in this important game. Right now they're just playing politics and waiting for Pelosi and Reid to self-destruct. It will probably work, but it won't move the big ball down field at all in terms of solving problems.
I'd love to think most of the people who are demanding delays are trying to get a better bill, and just that. But somehow I doubt that republicans are not hoping most of all for democrats to fail getting reform, thus being ousted in the midterms.
think it's clear enough that many of Obama's detractors are hoping for healthcare reform to be shoved aside long enough for the momentum to subside, then we can return to the same old same old.
I agree with this statement 100% JSpencer. The GOP is not coming up with a plan, so the choice I see is between an unrealistic plan from Obama or the status quo. I don't know which is worse. That's why for me the ideal is to have the Democrats commit to health care reform but take the time and spend the money to do it right.
People talk about the UK and Canada plans but what they forget is that Canada and the UK raised their taxes and made a commitment to health care. Obama and the Democrats are somehow trying to commit to health care but not spend any more on it. If they really want to do this than raise taxes across the board and don't pretend we're going to get something for nothing.
Frankly I'm quite disappointed with the whole business, but given how the sausage making political slash corporate machinery works, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. I still think we'd be much better off with a single payer system; instead we might get either nothing or something worse. So… what are these people elected for again? What a joke…
Unfortunately, as I noted in my article for this afternoon, the Republicans are failing to step up to the plate and at least give us a better plan, whether it comes up to a vote or not. They definitely need to do that to show us that they are serious players in this important game.</i.
Correction- as I noted in your post about this, Jazz, Rep Ryan did author a bill back in May which is languishing in committee. The GOP should be on all the cable shows and blogs talking about the proposals (major missed opportunity to help shake off the 'party of no' meme) but it's just not true to keep repeating that they haven't put anything forward.
The link to the bill from Thomas.gov is in my comment under your post.
I believe that Theodore Roosevelt proposed a universal health care plan about 100 years ago.
I'm so sick of the same old same old, I propose that we contact the Swiss government and ask them to run this country on a contract basis. Yes, I know they are a plutocracy but so are we.
The Dems have been wrongly rushing to enact bad health care legislation just as they have rushed to enact other bad legislation, which too many of their faithful Herd apparently are too incompetent to notice.
There's actually nothing wrong with waiting, or insisting on doing nothing at all indefinitely, when it is superior to rushing to do something wrong. (That includes the worst of the numerous defects with the current Dem initiative, the failure to address the costs that will be incurred.)
People who know, know — “change” is not the same as and doesn't necessarily ever mean “improvement.”
People who don't know, and who are childish or ignorant, want to rush to get Anything, NOW!
“The GOP is not coming up with a plan, so the choice I see is between an unrealistic plan from Obama or the status quo.”
More to the point, while the public (even Demmie faithful) is becoming more informed about the problems (as they did with the “climate” bill, which they substantially opposed, though the Dems rushed to pass it, anyway), notably with the costs and with the consequences they may face after the Dems have their way with health care, there is still a public dissatisfaction with that status quo, and support for intervention by Washington.
The problems arise because of the nature of this Dem rushing once more to pass bad legislation.
Plenty of us can and have promptly put on our Demented Demmie hats and given examples of what they could do instead, which makes a lot more sense on the basis of simplicity (truly elegant compared to what the Dems actually are thinking of doing) and integration with other things (like the perceived need in past months for stimulus or aid to ailing states and localities as well as individuals). What the Dems are doing is incrementalist, and in particular better incrementalist measures they could take instead have been identified, such as taking over Medicaid (incorporating it into Medicare along with VA and Indian Health and any other related services), or in actually going beyond the Trojan-horse S-CHIP-style stunts to extend Medicare to all children in the USA (including foreigners, including people up to, say, age 25 as as an extreme Dem bargaining position).
But the Dems instead are rushing foolishly and incompetently.
The real question that is raised is why they are doing this. Is it to exploit the power they currently have in Washington, to exploit their gains (actually, rejection of the GOP) in the past elections, or because they misread the public and think they are all igorant and easily led (the nature of the continued Obama travels and campaign-style appearances, especially now on behalf of this problem-ridden health care initiative), as the liberal media have been? Are they just conceited as well as elitist and out of touch with the public? (Do they believe the public is capable of being manipulated by a large enough fraction that it is worthwhile, in a way similar to how it directly now is manipulating the media for “safety” and to shape public perception through the media?)
Needless to say, the honeymoon is over and we're seeing some retreat before reality. (Just as with the GM bankruptcy, announced not at the start but near the end of the press appearance of the takeover of GM, Obama changed his demand from “before the August Congressional recess” to “by this fall [autumn]” for when Congress “should” give him a bill to sign. (Any bill? Some effectively demand that.)
“I believe that Theodore Roosevelt proposed a universal health care plan about 100 years ago.”
Many wanted public ownership and operation of the railroads and telegraphs and telephones, too, then.