Keep It Simpler, Stupid
David Frum writes:
What would it mean to “win” the healthcare fight?
For some, the answer is obvious: beat back the president’s proposals, defeat the House bill, stand back and wait for 1994 to repeat itself.
The problem is that if we do that… we’ll still have the present healthcare system. Meaning that we’ll have (1) flat-lining wages, (2) exploding Medicaid and Medicare costs and thus immense pressure for future tax increases, (3) small businesses and self-employed individuals priced out of the insurance market, and (4) a lot of uninsured or underinsured people imposing costs on hospitals and local governments.
We’ll have entrenched and perpetuated some of the most irrational features of a hugely costly and under-performing system, at the expense of entrepreneurs and risk-takers, exactly the people the Republican party exists to champion.
Not a good outcome.
Even worse will be the way this fight is won: basically by convincing older Americans already covered by a government health program, Medicare, that Obama’s reform plans will reduce their coverage. In other words, we’ll have sent a powerful message to the entire political system to avoid at all hazards any tinkering with Medicare except to make it more generous for the already covered.
He poses a thoughtful, forcefully stated argument that I’m going to ignore in favor of my latest hobbyhorse. If the GOP succeeds in blocking health care reform, Mr. Frum argues, “we’ll have sent a powerful message to the entire political system to avoid at all hazards any tinkering with Medicare.” He is probably right — that is the message politicians would take from a health care reform defeat.
But it isn’t the lesson they should take.
If health care reform is defeated, one lesson should be that it is easier to scare people in misleading ways when your legislative reform package is so ambitious, ill-defined, complicated and all-encompassing that confusion about what exactly it entails and the probably consequences are rational, even inevitable. Politicians should conclude that their time is better spent taking smaller, discrete steps to reform the health care system, even though incremental legislative efforts aren’t the stuff of historical legacies or televised ceremonies where parchment is signed with a fancy pen.
UPDATE: In a different post, David Frum gives an example of how hyperbolic and inaccurate attacks against liberals distract the right from criticizing and responding to the actual things for which it ought to critique the left.
It might mean a tactical win, but I doubt it.
Obama is playing tit-for-tat.
And even if it did become a tactical win for the conservatives, they are doomed in the long run because they have no strategy.
The side of the angels can just wait for the angry OLD white people to die off and the demographic timer on nonhispanic caucs to run out…..2030 isn’t it? When minorities become majorities?
Conor, the more the teabaggers get seen on tv, the worse it is for the GOP.
Angry fat old unattractive white people screaming and having psychotic episodes in public are not persuasive…..they are scary.
People don’t see themselves in old unattractive crazy people…..it is bad advertising.
— matoko_chan · Aug 8, 01:35 PM · #
“Politicians should conclude that their time is better spent taking smaller, discrete steps to reform the health care system, even though incremental legislative efforts aren’t the stuff of historical legacies or televised ceremonies where parchment is signed with a fancy pen.”
Because adding more barnacles to the ship is the way to superior service delivery!
It is hardly necessary to address the problematic aspects of medical and custodial care in this country this very year, or next. We are in the midst of a banking crisis and ought to use our limited public resources to recapitalize the banks and maintain aggregate demand; the limited time and attention of our public officials ought be devoted to working out a revised financial architecture. They kicked the can down the road on the banking system and then set about implementing various wish lists, with due deference to their favored constituency groups.
Why does a restructuring of the system of finance for medical and custodial care needs be any more fiendishly complex than the vagaries of insurance contracts require it to be? And why, if we are in the (reasonable) business of expansion of public subsidy of services which have unpredictable spikes in expenditure and for which the consumer has a severe deficit of information (as is the case with medical care, legal counsel, and (to a lesser degree) custodial care), can we not pair this with the excision of subsidies for commodities for which household demand is regular and predictable and a function of amenity (i.e. meals and groceries, utilities, housing)? One reason we likely cannot is that the corpus of this nation’s social workers and its human services apparatchiki and its trial lawyers are each an organized appetite. That appetite has an electoral vehicle in control of the federal legislature.
To complain, as does Mr. Frum (with your endorsement) of the Republican Party and its camp followers being led astray by diversions while writing a column on Mr. Limbaugh’s use of terminology lacks a certain sense of the art of rhetoric.
— Art Deco · Aug 8, 01:51 PM · #
This reminded me of this Andrew Biggs post, specifically the fifth paragraph (though I disagree with his sixth). These are exactly the kind of alternative plans Republicans are offering. If only they were pushed harder, or covered more, or presented with greater cohesion.
— Blar · Aug 8, 01:55 PM · #
If only they were pushed harder, or covered more, or presented with greater cohesion.
But Blar, that would have been fair play. ;)
— matoko_chan · Aug 8, 01:57 PM · #
This is a branding problem for the GOP as Chris Goode explains.
“The Twitter hashtag #iamthemob is filled with mockery at the “mob” accusation and claims that conservative anger is “manufactured” (in addition to a disturbing call today for reform protesters to “hurt” members of SEIU and ACORN “badly” if they see them at town-hall events, and an encouragement to bring firearms).
“Honestly it’s only a small minority of people who are acting out. The majority of these people are interested citizens, who are interested in these issues,” said AFP spokeswoman Amy Menefee.”
But extreme television is only going to cover the sensationalist angle…so all the public will see is astroturf-mobs…and a party that is having trouble attracting youth and minorities is going to look old, white and crazy.
— matoko_chan · Aug 8, 02:14 PM · #
I don’t think we’re seeing “confusion about what it entails.” I think we’re seeing the GOP tell absurd lies to a base that has already been conditioned to accept absurd lies from authorities they trust.
— Chet · Aug 8, 04:13 PM · #
Conor:
Your point is a good one. But, I don’t know who you’re talking to. When was the last time Republicans tried to do anything so sweeping? This is only something that liberals would try. Only liberals believe that we need to do something “fundamentally transforming” about health care.
Secondly, to beat on an old point that’s related to this one: aren’t you even a little bit surprised that Barack would try something so radical (and complicated), knowing that Hillarycare failed so miserably? To say nothing of the fact that liberals have absolutely mastered the art of incrementalism, knowing that’s the surest way to the promised land.
So, while your point is a good one, who the hell are you helping?
— jd · Aug 8, 04:25 PM · #
re: healthcare, maximize the average but provide a floor for the less fortunate. Problem is, the reform bill, as intended, won’t maximize the average — at least, that’s big worry. That’s because the market is by far the best mechanism for maximizing averages.
So why not keep (or tweak) the market, but add a floor. (Reasonable floors are not controversial.)
And for a healthcare floor, why not a government-offered major medical policy with reasonable yearly deductibles per family, and reasonable internal limitations on covered services? Doesn’t this solution avoid the negative economic effects that conservatives worry about? Doesn’t it thread the needle between conservative and liberal ideals of justice? Or is my hangover really that bad.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Aug 8, 04:36 PM · #
KVS, the republicans could return to making fair moves (like promoting the solution you postulate) instead of trying to lather up their evershrinking base with cheat moves.
That would be the optimal way to maximize winnings for their side for the rest of the Game.
But they have already framed their gamegoal as “break Obama==stop healthcare reform”.
So I think the gamespace set of moves for them does not include a return to fair play.
— matoko_chan · Aug 8, 05:16 PM · #
Yeah, Matoko, I’m afraid you might be right. Maybe the Blue Dogs could champion it.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Aug 8, 05:32 PM · #
Apropos of nothing, I threw together a simplistic Greasemonkey script (my first one!) to filter out selected TAS commenters. If you’re a firefox user and are interested, it’s available here. Suggestions for improvements always welcome.
— kenB · Aug 8, 05:49 PM · #
JD writes, “When was the last time Republicans tried to do anything so sweeping? This is only something that liberals would try.” Comprehensive immigration reform was the last time.
He also writes, “to beat on an old point that’s related to this one: aren’t you even a little bit surprised that Barack would try something so radical (and complicated), knowing that Hillarycare failed so miserably?” How could I be surprised when he spent the whole Democratic primary saying that he’d push a complicated health care reform bill?
— Conor Friedersdorf · Aug 8, 05:50 PM · #
“Only liberals believe that we need to do something “fundamentally transforming” about health care.”
I think you mean ‘only liberal politicians’. Some of us of the (non-liberal) rank-and-file might like to see the welfare state as is comprehensively reconstituted. Fat chance, of course.
— Art Deco · Aug 8, 06:04 PM · #
Conor:
Perhaps you could give an example of what your idea looks like in real life. What, for example, should conservatives do to promote a conservative solution to the health care “crisis?” What should conservatives do to stop a runaway disaster like what Obama and the Dems are proposing? Because short of playing the fearmonger game (like “Don’t touch Medicare!!!”), how else do we stop the juggernaut of fearmongering that the Dems are using?
— jd · Aug 8, 06:37 PM · #
Conservative leadership could actually fully back a bill (throwing full support behind the wyden-bennet bill would throw even me for a loop). But that would require a spine and an actual acumen for governing that’s been absent from the GOP since 1992.
— Dero · Aug 8, 11:41 PM · #
hey, jd, I have a great idea.
the next time a mob of angry fat old white teabaggers start screaming about government run healthcare, just have the congressperson agree.
Say, I wholly agree with you….lets just stop medicare and medicaid right now.
Those are government run single payer systems, aren’t they?
Why, we could balance the budget and solve entitlement growth in one fell swoop.
Works for meh….im young.
;)
— matoko_chan · Aug 9, 05:11 AM · #
Very good. One key is the word “comprehensive,” which is a near-synonym for totalitarian. The last thing we want is comprehensive health care reform. What we want is small, incremental steps, each of which makes sense on its own.
— The Reticulator · Aug 9, 12:49 PM · #
Reticulator,
Were we to replace the current system with something recommended by Milton Friedman, which was that we adopt medical savings accounts (perhaps funded by payroll deductions) conjoined to a public insurance program which covered (with satisfactory thoroughness) expenses incurred over a high deductible, we would have comprehensive health care reform. The discrete transactions you have with the medical service trade (with the physician in primary care, the dentist, the pharmacist, the optometrist, the physical therapist, &c) would quite generally be paid with a cheque drawn on your medical savings account, with the bulk of the cost of hospitalizations and nursing home admissions and dialysis and chemotherapy covered by a state agency or by a commercial insurer contracting with the state. If you want supplementary insurance, you can purchase it, but your employer is off the hook. Would this be totalitarian?— Art Deco · Aug 9, 01:23 PM · #
What we want is small, incremental steps, each of which makes sense on its own.
Then why wasn’t that your gamegoal?
Your gamegoal is “stop healthcare reform==break Obama”.
Is it that you can’t explain that to people that are either too low information to admit medicare is government healthcare or too disengenous to care?
Gypsyhooks and demagoguery worked when angry old white people were the biggest mob.
You need to change tactics and get a strategy.
2008 Obama wins;
college grads by 54%
youth by 66%
hispanics by 67%
blacks by 97%
women by 57%
EC votes 365 to 173…. a difference of 192 votes.
— matoko_chan · Aug 9, 01:25 PM · #
It is not too late…Douthat has the NYT pulpit.
He could say something something about a return to fair moves.
Do you think he will?
I don’t.
— matoko_chan · Aug 9, 02:38 PM · #
KVS;
“And for a healthcare floor, why not a government-offered major medical policy with reasonable yearly deductibles per family,” You mean like medicaid? In fact Mass did raise the income level for Medicaid as part of its comprehensive reform. And that had a significant impact on enrollment. Of course they ended up spending more than they anticipated. And yes they also had to have a premium subsidization program for those above a certain income level. And that hits at the crux of the issue. Without that subsidization, many family would be expect to pay “too much” for healthcare. And so now the state of Mass. has spent “too much” (or at least more than expected) on healthcare. So who SHOULD pay “too much”.
Or should we at least figure out the “system” should pay less.
And Matoko, again demeaning those who are frightened by the health care initiatives (they’re old, ugly, fat stupid) may make you feel good but does nothing to get toward a solution.
And as suggested above it appears that because Republicans have not offered a “comprehensive” opposition reform but instead have offered competing individual policy initiatives (i.e. taxing benefits”) they are accused of offering nothing and just saying “no”
— C3 · Aug 9, 03:59 PM · #
because Republicans have not offered a “comprehensive” opposition reform but instead have offered competing individual policy initiatives (i.e. taxing benefits”) they are accused of offering nothing and just saying “no”
Relly? Are they offering that? That isn’t what I heard.
I heard them say “This is Obama’s Waterloo—we can break him”.
We hear the teabaggers loud and clear……Communist! Socialist! Tyranny! Just Say No!
Perhaps you should start by educating your base on your legislative initiatives.
C3, I speak truth.
Old ugly fat and crazy is simply bad advertising…they don’t look frightened, they look insane.
Perception is reality, and this is branding.
Errone wants to go to Cooltown, and angry fat old white people are miles away from there.
Cheat moves in tit-for-tat get cheat moves in response.
Tit-for-tat is unbeatable.
I proposed a solution….republicans starting with Douthat can return to fair move strategy and maximize winnings for both sides.
But that means abandoning their Gamespace goal of break-Obama and start crafting honest compromise legislation and educating their base instead of exploiting them as anti-Obama shock troops.
I don’t know…possibly the GOP sees universal healthcare as Certain Doom for their party.
But something will happen….the GOP is now the party of the past…the Democrats are the party of the future. The vast forces of cultural and demographic evolution shift and roll under the surface…
Evolution will provide.
— matoko_chan · Aug 9, 04:43 PM · #
This is the question I asked John Schwenkler….Do you have a responsibility to educate the base or do you demagogue them into doing what you think is best for them?
If you believe (like Schwenkler) that the base is un-educatable and you have to wait for them to “come around”…… then demagoguery is your only option to retain the power they represent.
— matoko_chan · Aug 9, 04:54 PM · #
Is Grand New Party a bestseller?
Nope.
Malkins and Levins print demagoguery are bestsellers.
— matoko_chan · Aug 9, 05:03 PM · #
A lot of Republicans seems to think that the health care system is fine the way it is (“best health care system in the world”) and that everything will be fine once they defeat Obamacare.
It is painfully obvious, though, regardless of what solution you want, that costs will keep going up way faster than inflation and more and more people will lose their coverage every year. The odds of the system being made more free-market, at least in the short run, are virtially non-existent.
I will be interested to see what the Republican position on Medicare in the future considering they have become its (and its massive costs) biggest defenders at the moment. The problem isn’t going away, we’ll be back here in the near future if this reform package doesn’t happen.
— Brad Templeman · Aug 9, 05:19 PM · #
Brad, the share of the population without health insurance is little different than what it was 20 years ago. Two things:
1. What Herbert Stein said, “Something that can’t go on forever, won’t”. To the extent that the continual expansion in the share of domestic product devoted to medical care is driven by the evolution of consumer preferences, such will gradually be constrained as expenditures on medical care impinge increasingly on those for other commodities the consumer may value, provided the costs of the care are transparent to the consumer.
2. To the extent that the expansion in this share has been put on autopilot by public expenditure, these might be restrained by prescribing a global budget for publicly provided medical and custodial care, expressed as a share of domestic product. Insurance pools risks and converts unpredictable spikes in expenditure into regular assessments on income. Take public responsibility for the spikes by insuring over a high annual deductible and adjust the deductible at intervals to maintain public expenditure on medical and custodial care at around 8% of domestic product. Have people pay out of pocket for sums below the deductible (typically mundane expenditures) in a market regulated not in prices but by occupational licensure, malpractice law, guild standards, and health and safety regulations.
— Art Deco · Aug 9, 06:17 PM · #
Art Deco,
I think the Uncle Milt reforms you talk about could be good. Note that each of the parts stands fairly well on its own. Something along those lines would be the path to un-totalitarian health care.
Despite what I said, I wouldn’t get too hung up on the word “comprehensive” in all its meanings. I am criticizing the word in the way the left usually means it, which although they won’t describe it in these words means a big plan that you have to buy as a complete package, created through corrupt dealmaking and providing a maximum opportunity for political corruption from here to eternity.
— The Reticulator · Aug 9, 08:08 PM · #
Re: So why not keep (or tweak) the market, but add a floor.
That’s pretty much what the reform proposals do. They retain the existing health insurance system while getting rid of its abuses (like recisson, etc.) Employer-based insurance is pretty much left alone (apart from requiring it to meet certain minimum standards) while the individual market is rolled into an Insurance Exchange where plans will compete more openly and directly and where buyers will be able to enjoy the same benefits (in regards to risk pooling) that group plans offer. Lower income people will be offered subsidies. The much debated public option will backstop the entire system as a last resort for those who fall through the cracks. Obviously there’s an awful lot of details that need to be debated, but this reform is no way near as radical as some are claiming. It does not involve a “government takeover” of healthcare, and it will not inconvenience most people in any way. There are arguments both on the Left and the Right that the reform should be more ambitious— that workplace insurance is the real problem and we ought move away from it. But most people prefer their workplace benefits and so this reform does not compel change in that area.
Re: One key is the word “comprehensive,” which is a near-synonym for totalitarian.
???
In what language is that true? Certainly not English!
Re: A lot of Republicans seems to think that the health care system is fine the way it is (“best health care system in the world”) and that everything will be fine once they defeat Obamacare.
Even the health insurance industry no longer believes that, which why it has been willing to work with Obama and the Democrat on this. The GOP has no major allies in this fight, which is why it has been reduced to bare-faced lies, fear-mongering and ugly demagoguery. The sensible thing would have been to agree to work with the Democrats too, and some senators at least (e.g., Grassley) have tried this. But the bulk of the GOP has made this all about defeating Obama instead. Even if the GOP does block reform, the victory will be a Pyrrhic one, and rather short-lived— and the reform we eventually do get may be a far more radical one in five or six years, for reasons that Frum points out. Nor will the GOP benefit politically, even short-term.
— JonF · Aug 9, 08:12 PM · #
“…seem to think…”
Could TAS modify the code for its blog to make these words flash in red capital letters whenever they appear in a comment? It would provide a warning that the writer is making things up, and would help save time reading through the comment section.
— The Reticulator · Aug 9, 09:56 PM · #
Me: “One key is the word “comprehensive,” which is a near-synonym for totalitarian.”
JonF: “In what language is that true? Certainly not English!”
That would be in English. Comprehensive means completely or broadly. Totalitarian is based on the word total. Complete, total. Not so different, are they?
— The Reticulator · Aug 9, 10:04 PM · #
this reform is no way near as radical as some are claiming. It does not involve a “government takeover” of healthcare, and it will not inconvenience most people in any way.
This is what would be called a fishy statement.
— The Reticulator · Aug 9, 10:07 PM · #
Can we get some smarter conservatives in here, please?
— Chet · Aug 9, 10:10 PM · #
Chet: “Can we get some smarter conservatives in here, please?”
Sorry, no. The smarter ones are assigned to the tough cases. The rest of us get to mop up the easy ones.
— The Reticulator · Aug 9, 10:15 PM · #
Sure, I suppose saying “no” to whatever the Democratic president wants to do, regardless of the electoral mandate that put him there or the resounding electoral defeat of Republicans, is pretty easy. After all, regardless of how Americans actually vote, everyone knows that they never, ever intend to actually vote against conservativism. It’s a conservative country no matter how popular progressive positions are; Glenn Beck says so.
— Chet · Aug 9, 10:27 PM · #
Chet, people do not alter their social and political views because the opposition won 53% of the vote. You will just have to stew.
— Art Deco · Aug 10, 12:26 AM · #
Based on pure self-interest, I should be clamoring for government-run healthcare — I’m self-employed, I’ve had a quintuple by-pass and I take five different types of medicine, yet I believe it would be disastrous for the country. I think people need to take deep breath, look at how this monstrosity the government is proposing will damage the economy, and healthcare itself, then make a principled decision based on the long-term interests of us all, not just short-term self-interest.
— mike farmer · Aug 10, 01:01 AM · #
I didn’t say that they did. But it’s a progressive country where a majority supports progressive positions. Shouldn’t that, I don’t know, count for something? Or is there literally no way to vote against Republican intransigence?
— Chet · Aug 10, 02:51 AM · #
Shouldn’t that, I don’t know, count for something? Or is there literally no way to vote against Republican intransigence?
You still have to make good proposals and argue them on their merits. Winning the election doesn’t give a blank check for whatever somebody suddenly announces is the “progressive” position. Winning the election puts you in a good position to do that, but you still have to use some intelligence and diplomacy. Winning doesn’t require the defeated party to give up using the constitutionally protected mechanisms that are available to help thwart the winners.
I’ll leave alone for the moment that leftwingers who are no longer liberal are now hiding behind the word “progressive,” even though the original Progressives supported greater ability for people (as opposed to the winning political machines) to have a say in government. A true Progressive would honor and respect the town hall protesters.
— The Reticulator · Aug 10, 03:08 AM · #
Very good.The last thing we want is comprehensive health care reform. What we want is small, incremental steps, each of which makes sense on its own.
— jordan 6 rings · Aug 10, 03:16 AM · #
I honor and respect anyone who’s there to engage in democracy, not engage in political thuggery. I wonder that you can’t seem to tell the difference.
— Chet · Aug 10, 03:33 AM · #
Chet wrote:
You write a lot of crap here, Chet, and you won’t support your stupid opinions even when you’re asked to provide evidence. You just call us racists, or trolls, or dumb.
Well, here’s a poll that shows you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. It’s from Gallup and it says that conservatives outnumber liberals by a 2 to 1 margin.
— jd · Aug 10, 04:35 AM · #
Reticulator:
I note that Chet is blowing smoke about the protestors being bought and paid for—again. He did that in another comment thread. I repeatedly asked for evidence. All he did was say things like: “I wonder that you can’t seem to tell the difference.” Chet is an ass and discussion with him is a waste of time.
— jd · Aug 10, 04:39 AM · #
Self-reported identification is a different beast than support for progressive policies. Here’s the report that proves what I’m talking about; again, it’s a well-known fact that a majority of Americans support such progressive agenda items as a woman’s right to choose, health care reform, reduction of military spending, regulation of businesses, higher taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals, and so on – as confirmed by multiple polls from Pew, Gallop, and the University of Michigan.
http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/pdf/caf_mm-20090526-6.pdf
It’s true that more people identify themselves as conservatives than as liberals. It’s also nonetheless true that liberal positions are far more widespread and popular than conservative ones are. (The discrepancy is largely due, it seems reasonable to believe, to conservative efforts to demonize the word “liberal” while simultaneously concealing most of their core ideology.)
Which I provided. Heather Blish, remember? You just pretended like that never happened.
You are dumb, jd, if you think “some of my best friends are Mexican” somehow indemnifies you from accusations of racism (which I never actually made, as you’ll recall. Guilty conscience, maybe?)
— Chet · Aug 10, 05:10 AM · #
Chet is correctamundo……sowwy jd.
nah nah hey hey
healthcare reform is on the way
it dosen’t matter what folks SAY
so long as they dont VOTE that way
force-amplification and astroturfing are ways of making the remaining 24% that vote republican seem like more.
btw…where is Ross’ retraction on pro-life senitiment??
You sure look dumb IMHO, jd…..is it that you can’t read?
— matoko_chan · Aug 10, 11:12 AM · #
Don’t try that crap with me, Chet. You are a dishonest ass.
I said my son was Mexican, not “some of my best friends are Mexican.”
And you did accuse me of racism when you wrote: Mexican isn’t a race, and this is just the old “some of my best friends are black” attempt to deflect charges of racism.
And then you ask if I have a guilty conscience about race.
I asked you to bring supporting evidence town hall meetings, but not from Wikipedia, Daily Kos, or MSNBC. So you bring “evidence” from mediamatters.org.
And again, I ask, who the hell is Heather Blish?
I’m through with you. Please click on that open tab to media matters now. You are the troll.
— jd · Aug 10, 12:33 PM · #
Re: Comprehensive means completely or broadly. Totalitarian is based on the word total.
By that simple logic “atoms” do not exist at all because the word in Greek means “indivisible” and we know they can be split up.
Cute plays on words or etymologies are not a substitute for reasoned discourse.
— JonF · Aug 10, 01:16 PM · #
Ynglesias advocates a return to fair play….
The problem I see with that is the base is violently against bipartisan compromise and Demint already promised them they could “break” Obama by stopping healthcare reform.
I doubt the angry old whiteguy base will settle for a draw…..they will percieve that as a loss for their team.
— matoko_chan · Aug 10, 01:34 PM · #
“You still have to make good proposals and argue them on their merits.”
But one cannot have a reasonable discussion with unreasonable people. One cannot argue the merits of health care reform with Medicare recipients bitching about “government-run health care” or with people raving about “death panels”.
Mike
— MBunge · Aug 10, 03:23 PM · #
But one cannot have a reasonable discussion with unreasonable people. One cannot argue the merits of health care reform with Medicare recipients bitching about “government-run health care” or with people raving about “death panels”.
Or with a White House communications operative who says under the new plan we can continue to have our old insurance and that Obama will reduce regulation on insurance— even as it proposes measures designed to make it impossible for insurance companies to continue to do business for long. If the White House and its supporters are going to continue to lie to people, what hope of reasonable communication is there?
— The Reticulator · Aug 10, 04:06 PM · #
“Or with a White House communications operative who says under the new plan we can continue to have our old insurance and that Obama will reduce regulation on insurance— even as it proposes measures designed to make it impossible for insurance companies to continue to do business for long. If the White House and its supporters are going to continue to lie to people, what hope of reasonable communication is there?”
Thanks for another great example of the unreasonable arguer. You can’t debate the merits of health care reform with someone who’s going to characterize the other side’s plan in the most extreme way possible (“make it impossible for insurance companies to continue to do business”), then accuse the other side of lying when they don’t accept or conform to that extreme characterization.
Mike
— MBunge · Aug 10, 04:45 PM · #
That’s not an accusation of racism.
No, I brought evidence from Pew, Gallup, and the University of Michigan as compiled by Media Matters. The report is fully sourced; if you doubt their conclusions by all means check their references.
I told you who Heather Blish was, already. You pretended the Heather Blish incident never even occurred. Now you’re going to pretend you never even heard the name? You’re an absurd troll.
— Chet · Aug 10, 04:55 PM · #
Thanks for another great example of the unreasonable arguer. You can’t debate the merits of health care reform with someone who’s going to characterize the other side’s plan in the most extreme way possible (“make it impossible for insurance companies to continue to do business”), then accuse the other side of lying when they don’t accept or conform to that extreme characterization.
See? It works both ways, doesn’t it.
— The Reticulator · Aug 10, 05:16 PM · #
Mike, the legislation is a 1,000 page amendment to the United States Code and a summary flow-chart representation of it is migraine inducing. How do you propose to ‘characterize’ it at all?
— Art Deco · Aug 10, 05:51 PM · #
Art Deco…are you saying conservative congressmen can’t read a thousand pages in a month?
Isn’t that their job, to be able to read?
You know…the beauty of tit-for-tat is that is that you can force the other player to play fair by making a fair move. What would be a fair move for conservatives at this point?
given that it is pretty obvious that conservatives made the first cheat move……force-amplification and disinformation.
— matoko_chan · Aug 10, 06:01 PM · #
“See? It works both ways, doesn’t it.”
Well, it does but that’s not what you demonstrated. You just proved that health care reform critics such as yourself are unreasonable.
Mike
— MBunge · Aug 10, 06:10 PM · #
On the other hand, Matoko, if conservatives honestly believe that Obama made the first cheating move, and if they have the same misunderstanding of tit for tat as you do, then they should respond in kind, right?
— J Mann · Aug 10, 06:25 PM · #
lets discuss that!
what was Obamas cheat move?
— matoko_chan · Aug 10, 06:28 PM · #
in your opinion jd.
;)
— matoko_chan · Aug 10, 06:29 PM · #
/crickets.
okfine jd, let us assume that you and conservatives believe that Obama was not negotiating in good faith when he made the dialog/sausage-making party overture.
But in tit-for-tat, conservatives could have forced Obama to negotiate fairly within the legislative process by accepting his offer.
I unnerstand tit-for-tat very well…..don’t you?
SDB—
There’s been a lot of analysis of this, and it turns out that honesty isn’t the best policy. One guy decided to run a computer tournament; people were permitted to create algorithms in a synthetic language which would have the ability to keep track of previous exchanges and make a decision on each new exchange whether to be honest or to cheat. He challenged them to see who could come up with the one which did the best in a long series of matches against various opponents. It turned out that the best anyone could find, and the best anyone has ever found, was known as “Tit-for-tat”.
On the first round, it plays fair. On each successive round, it does to the other guy what he did the last time.
When Tit-for-tat plays against itself, it plays fair for the entire game and maximizes output. When it plays against anyone who tosses in some cheating, it punishes it by cheating back and reduces the other guys unfair winnings.
No-one has ever found a way of defeating it.
SDB left Known Blogspace about when I started.
He left a great gaping hole in the conservative intellectual firmament.
I wonder what he would have said about Palin?
— matoko_chan · Aug 10, 06:50 PM · #
I wanted to offer a substantive point of view on policy-making from the point of view of someone who gets to implement legislation once it’s signed into law, but this thread is so jacked by Matoko and JD, I don’t really see the point.
— Erik Vanderhoff · Aug 10, 08:30 PM · #
well..i think jd ran away.
i cede the podium.
/makes obeiance
— matoko_chan · Aug 10, 09:33 PM · #
“Politicians should conclude that their time is better spent taking smaller, discrete steps to reform the health care system, even though incremental legislative efforts aren’t the stuff of historical legacies or televised ceremonies where parchment is signed with a fancy pen.”
This scenario is completely impossible with our legislative process and the tools that reside in the shed. Exhibit 1A for incrementalism failure: US Tax Code
— Matt C · Aug 11, 04:09 PM · #