Where to go from here on health care?

[finnbow]

David Brooks has an interesting take on the future of the health care debate. Which of his four described approaches do you ascribe to?

I may also have to go with the "Weak and Feckless Approach" as he did.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by finnbow

David Brooks has an interesting take on the future of the health care debate. Which of his four described approaches do you ascribe to?

I may also have to go with the "Weak and Feckless Approach" as he did.

Finn, I lost my last feck a while back so I'm with you and Brooks, one of the few conservative pundits I ever agree with. I think it's the only way and I like the idea of "the labratory of the states" being utilized to work through all the combinations and permutations of health care policy, either to arrive at a workable national model or, like Canada, to arrive at 50 different approaches that might better address local needs and circumstances.

I take exception, however, to Brooks' contention that the country wasn't ready for a transformative presidency like FDR's. I think we were but that Obama has so far failed to be the leader such transformation requires. He had a golden opportunity with health care reform and he absolutely blew it.

The trust factor Brooks concentrates on is also a part of the equation and Obama and the Democrats have blown that opportunity too for the reasons Brooks describes. We've seen far too much politics as usual from Congress and the Administration's operatives in the White house.

Another thing I believe is that we can't stop. Like getting back on the horse after you've been bucked off, Congress needs to jump back in and start over without the Republicans. If they don't nobody will touch this again for decades.

John

[d-ray657]

I question Mr. Brooks rather bald statement that Americans have told democrats they rejected the health care bill. Is this based on polling? Is this based on making broad projections about the meaning of a special election in Massachusetts? That statement is, however, central to the thesis of his four "choices." To paraphrase the President a bit, the special election result could just as easily be read as "We're tired of you all effing around in Washington and not getting anything done."

I say, keep working on passing the healthcare reform, but don't make that your only product. Work on passing some progressive measures to address problems in the economy. An alternative to the approach taken in Brooks's article is one of the articles in this series on bipartisanship. http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.c...anship-matter/ I rather like the comments of Glenn Greenwald, about a third of the way down the list of articles. Take whatever measures are necessary to circumvent the power of the filibuster, and move boldly forward. Get something done.

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I question Mr. Brooks rather bald statement that Americans have told democrats they rejected the health care bill. Is this based on polling? Is this based on making broad projections about the meaning of a special election in Massachusetts?

From a WashPost/Harvard/Kaiser Foundation poll released today, 43 percent of Massachusetts voters say they support the health-care proposals advanced by Obama and congressional Democrats; 48 percent oppose them. Among Brown's supporters, eight in 10 said they were opposed to the measures, 66 percent of them strongly so.

Consider for a moment that this poll comes from a state widely recognized as among the most liberal in the country. I think, for better or worse, Brooks is probably right.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by finnbow

From a WashPost/Harvard/Kaiser Foundation poll released today, 43 percent of Massachusetts voters say they support the health-care proposals advanced by Obama and congressional Democrats; 48 percent oppose them. Among Brown's supporters, eight in 10 said they were opposed to the measures, 66 percent of them strongly so.

Consider for a moment that this poll comes from a state widely recognized as among the most liberal in the country. I think, for better or worse, Brooks is probably right.

Right, and yet wrong. As I explained in another tragic thread, when people are asked about the actual content of the bill they are in favor of it. But money is speech and they spent a lot of speech defeating it.

[Fast_Eddie]

Okay, read the article. He makes some very good points, especially at the beginning. May have been prudent to try to gain trust. But I don't know if that can really be done anymore. It might take more than a term, or even more than a generation to gain trust in government after the nuke Reagan threw at it.

What he calls Dangerous and Demagogic Approach sounds like a Republican tactic- we can lower your taxes, kick some ass in Iraq and don't you worry how it's paid for! The Democrats, at least at this juncture seem to reject that.

I have no idea what will happen, but I guarantee two things- no Republican will vote for meaningful health care reform and there will be no reform as good as the bill currently proposed. It only gets worse, weaker and less effective. I'm pretty sure we will not regulate the Insurance industry with regard to pre existing conditions, life time limits and dropping sick people. We almost certainly won't contain Medicare costs. That's a real missed opportunity. Other than Clinton there has been almost no work to cut the big expenses- Military, Medicade/Medicare and Social Security. If Obama makes it to a second term he too may take a swing at Military spending.

[merrylander]

Brooks makes me wonder, I see him quite a bit on the Newshour and he reminds me of those children that sit and rock back and forth. If he would bloody well sit still while he is talking I could pay better attention to what he is saying.

BTW, if Mass is such a 'liberal' state why do they keep on electing Republicans, Brown was not the first and will not be the last. Next Christmas instead of having the Holy Family in the manger they should just replace them with a dog.