When Rhetoric Gets in the Way of Good Ideas
E.J. Dionne thinks this week — the week of the health care summit — “will determine the shape of American politics for the next three years.”
Even if it’s not as momentous a week as Mr. Dionne suggests, I hope it does (at the very least) mark the beginning of the end of the unproductive ways in which the debate has, so far, been framed.
Case in point: Published in today’s NYT, five leading conservatives offer their thoughts on reform. First up is former Senator Bill Frist, who writes …
The most powerful way to reduce costs (and make room to expand coverage) is to shift away from “volume-based” reimbursement (the more you do, the more money you make) to “value-based” reimbursement.
That suggestion is consistent with the conclusion reached by Atul Gawande in his article, “The Cost Conundrum,” published in The New Yorker last summer.
In addition, the Senate-approved version of health care reform offers a nod to the merit of Frist’s suggestion. According to Jonathan Rauch, the Senate bill “includes programs designed to identify better payment methods.”
That’s presumably not enough for Frist or his counterparts who are still serving in the Senate, and if they wish to strenghten this path toward “better payment methods,” they should, by all means, offer ideas for doing just that. But when they offer those ideas, they might consider dropping the character attacks exemplified by the first paragraph of Frist’s contribution to the NYT’s round-up of conservative ideas …
President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have failed at health care reform. They have failed because they fundamentally don’t believe in markets, incentives and the power of hundreds of millions of people to make smart choices about their health. It’s just not in the Democratic leaders’ DNA.
I have trouble believing that such chest-thumping rhetoric will do anything to advance the search for common ground.
7 Responses to “When Rhetoric Gets in the Way of Good Ideas”
One of the things about that market based rhetoric and the core concepts involved is that making those decisions actually requires a great deal of specialized knowledge that most people just don't have. I am not excluding myself from this, either. In addition one of the basic truths of health cares is that often we find ourselves surprised by health crises that come at us from left field. Most market based solutions don't adequately address these facts.
“I have trouble believing that such chest-thumping rhetoric will do anything to advance the search for common ground.”
You seem to think these people want to operate in good faith but fail.
Please. They want more power to themselves. For them, defeating the bill would be a symbol that they are still the kings of the world rather than a bunch of sad little men who will be swept away into total non-existence by the passage of time. For idiots like Frist or the pathetic scum warbling about “nationalized healthcare”, opposition to the bill is like existential viagra. They must be defeated. The bill is good enough. It would be good to pass even if it was only to rebuke the destructive and superficial impulses that seek to topple it.
“I have trouble believing that such chest-thumping rhetoric will do anything to advance the search for common ground. “
Well said Pete – that goes for both sides BTW.
All the authors in the NYT piece were has-beens who worked for he combined Raygun- Bussshhh cabals. They were all tossed in the rubbish, especially Bill “Terry Schiavo is aware “cause I saw the video” Frist. All these shysters really need to go away.
What is being showcased here is a warmed over version of what failed in 2009 with insufficient detail to even score the cost and economic impact of the bill. It's an exercise by Obama and the Democrats to use the cheerleading media to push a 'healthcare reform' effort through that most people don't want.
The CBO says the newly released Obama proposal doesn't have enough detail or specifics to support an analysis.
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=473
Brings to mind the Who — “Won't get fooled again”. But who knows, they may yet pull it off.
“It's an exercise by Obama and the Democrats to use the cheerleading media to push a 'healthcare reform' effort through that most people don't want.”
Wanting to impose new federal price controls on insurers' rates or rate increases (not even waiting for at least a pretense of constitutional federalism, for the angry consumers to seek help from their state governments, where this issue belongs), a blatantly demagogic gimmick appealing to base instincts of the easily-swayed, isn't just sickening but is remarkable in how it goes against any honest attempt by the Dems to show they've learned last year's lesson, and truly want to bargain for once with the GOP, and actually in good faith, too. This is the opposite of all that, as well as wrong in other ways. I can only wonder right now if it's another example of ObamaCo being out of touch with reality, or that he is taking the side of the Dems who really want still to overreach, or if this is just puffing themselves up as part of their initial stance or “bargaining” position, or if they want to overreach and court rejection by the GOP, in order to proceed with the “reconciliation” bypass tactic (underhanded) and force the “lock” on their “progress” to be released (broken).
“a warmed over version of what failed in 2009 with insufficient detail to even score”
They've failed in other ways (example, above). This wasn't a serious effort by them to do what needed to be done, scale back and pull back the overreach and limit what is sought only to what should be considered, real reform, nothing more. With only that, using “reconciliation” would still be slimy, but understandable given their desperation to pass something and win someone's approval right now.