What Would George Washington Do About Health Care?
America today faces unsettling and dangerous times, not unlike our ancestors under colonial rule. Our greatest concern of the moment is health care protection against the tyranny of private medical providers. Our founding generation also faced authoritary victimization as part of a colonial empire. Let us look to see if they had wisdom that we might follow. Who in America back then had the best plan for the future? George Washington is still universally respected for his good judgment. Let’s ask him what he would do in our shoes. Let’s make him President again for a moment.
First questions first, details later. Would Washington push for reform? Of course he would. He was willing to offer his neck to the axe for relief from tyrants that threatened his livelihood and his rights. Did he hesitate to accept commissioning from the politicians at the Continental Congress? No. As a delegate he wore his military uniform to the sessions on purpose. Did he trust his dream to the democratic process? Decisively. With his life and reputation at stake, he took the helm and steered the boat, bow to the wind, eventually gathered competing voices around him (Hamilton and Jefferson), and finally retired to Mount Vernon, confident that the lovers of tyranny had been pushed aside and reform minded people, in a democracy, would do just fine without him.
But wait. Now we have Barack Obama as President.
Someone reminded me recently that Obama, during his campaign for the Presidency, repeatedly promised to make the healthcare process transparent, but then turned around and made sure it was transacted behind closed doors. I could not let this stand untouched, so I jotted down my ideas. And lo, a blog sprang forth.
1. Backroom brokering.
Obama did not fail to tell us and Congress in general, but clear, terms what he wanted in healthcare. Remember the President does not write the laws. Recall Hillary’s attempt to forge a plan for her husband early in Bill Clinton’s term, without help from Congress, resulting in failure.
I expect Obama thought that if his party legislators would come up with a good program, it would look better coming from Congress without him trying to slam dunk it. By personally standing back, Obama probably made a strategic mistake. It gave the Republicans an opportunity and a stage for a cacophony of criticism, charging inept and unfair handling by the Democrat legislators. What many overlook is that the Democrats, in shaping the House and Senate bills, did the "behind closed doors" thing as standard procedure. So what is new? The Democrats complained loudly about the Republican Congresses under Bush doing exactly the same thing.
2. Railroading
The Republicans are having great fun, saying Obama is trying to ram a bad bill down the American people's throat if they go the "reconciliation" route to bypass the filibuster blockade. Note that the filibuster rule is not standard parliamentary procedure; it is a concession the Senate at one point allowed in to protect the minority's chance to publicly register strong opposition over controversial issues. What is so offensive about setting this unusual concession aside? --that is, going around it, to revert to normal parliamentary procedure where matters are decided and the majority takes the day. How can a majority vote of duly elected legislators somehow be a ramming of things down our throat? (This could open up discussion of "tyranny of the majority,' but to eliminate majority voting would be to amputate the legs of democracy).
Democrats were voted into majority position in the last congressional election when healthcare reform was a top issue. The Republican noise sounds like sour grapes to me. For the majority to try to pass a law to implement a campaign promise should be expected. If what they come up with is not what the minority of "duly elected members" wanted, the minority has a chance in the next election to turn the Democrats out. The opposition has less than one year to wait. Elections ought to mean something.
3. Public Confusion.
How does one explain why several recent polls show a majority of Americans disliking the proposed healthcare bills when only months earlier, in the summer before the 2008 election, the polls were giving an opposite reading?
The current negative polls are not unanimous. Nevertheless, the Republicans are relying on their "chosen" polls for the keystone of their opposition. Polls have a reputation for swaying in the wind. Note that historians do not treat polls as very useful primary material. Polls tend to reflect what their questions solicit. If the public is confused about what is actually in the proposed health care legislation, and the legislators, "experts," and the Congressional Office of the Budget (traditionally relied on as an objective data collection agency) contradict each other in predicting the bill's future financial impact, then the debate becomes nothing better than varied opinions. I interpret any shifting in the polls as a reflection of confusion on the issue. I attribute this confusion to three things:
First: Obama's failure to take strong-armed leadership and go "to the people" as other Presidents have done with their favorite but controversial desires. Two quick examples: Wilson touring the country to promote the League of Nations embraced in the peace treaty after WWl; and more recently, Bush, who tried the same with his desire to deep six social security.
Second: Disingenuous Republican flag waving about Socialism (there is no socialism in the plan--see my blog on this).
Third: Republican ridicule of the bills' voluminous length with the silly charge that the legislators could not possibly read that much. I ask my students to read nearly that much every semester, and they don't have any staff to help them.
4. My Advice and Predictions.
The Republicans would do well to recognize the hypocrisy of trying to play both sides of the fence--pretending they have a better plan while simultaneously saying they want the government to stay out of it. Candidates for office (both parties), jockeying for a running lane, are proving as rationally undiscerning as the electorate to whom they are pandering.
I think the Republicans are miscalculating. If they succeed in defeating the standing proposed legislation, there will be no starting over from scratch. We will do the same as we did with the immigration reform controversy. There, disagreement prevented legislation until the election was over in 2008. With election jockeying over, we moved on to other crises and forgot about immigration. But with health care continuing “as is” without reform, the election is distant enough that the people will recollect how bad the HMOs are, and it will appear to more people that the Republicans are what Democrats already think of them--whiny obstructionists (as the Republicans thought the Democrats were the whiny obstructionists over Iraq in early 2008).
As of today, Obama is stepping out finally to try to cut through this silliness and call the often fractious Democrats to rally to their electoral calling.
5. Some Historical Perspective.
Let's stuff politics. We have good historical precedent and Constitutional process for how to go about reform. The late 1800s saw commerce and industry creating egregious suffering. The people demanded reform, a (Progressive Reform) movement developed, Presidents of both parties joined the cause, Congress legislated, and the Supreme Court played its part. The same pattern was followed in the 1930s with the New Deal (except the Democrats held on to the Presidency until the glue dried).
The politicians today need to recognize what the people already know--that health care in America is broken and is not going to be fixed without intervention, economic and political philosophy aside. Health care is sick, and the infection is creating debilitating fever in the body politic and general economy. Which is a greater threat to America? -- another municipal terrorist attack, or 30 million people unprotected against life threatening disease and countless numbers of others fighting off bankruptcy while paying more for rent or a mortgage than they have available for food and education.
The Republicans have proven masters at pumping up fear of terrorists. The Democrats don't need to raise any specters of fear. There are paralyzing anxieties facing all of us every day, fears more tangible that the Democrats could tap into if they had the skills. Where are the golden-tongued William Jennings Bryans and the wordsmithing Abraham Lincolns when we need them? Are we left with only Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, and John Boehner as our prophets?
6. My Final Shots
I don’t understand the objection to requiring all to have health insurance. No one complains about other instances where insurance is required for public safety or general social benefit, i.e., automobile insurance, employers' workers’ compensation.
I consider healthcare to be a fundamental individual right as included in the first and third of the three inalienable rights listed in Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence (life and the pursuit of happiness). To put it plainly, I (reluctantly) trust the government more than private industry. Private industry cares nothing about my well-being. At least with the government and its bureaucratic clumsiness and inefficiency, the voters can have a say at fixing the problems which in this forum are not hidden by the sneaky, unethical, gouging, greedy capitalistic private sector, over which you and I have no control.
As for the complaint that Obama's plan will raise premiums; the HMO's will never be outdone at this skill. The idea that "the market will take care of itself" is a lousy bet. Lately the market seems to be handled by crooked accountants, inept CEO's, and profit blinded, manipulating financiers.
Both the "left" and the "right" have lost their way. Let's you and I lead a mutiny and take back the ship, and apologize to George Washington and associates for messing up the experiment they crafted for us to take care of.
First questions first, details later. Would Washington push for reform? Of course he would. He was willing to offer his neck to the axe for relief from tyrants that threatened his livelihood and his rights. Did he hesitate to accept commissioning from the politicians at the Continental Congress? No. As a delegate he wore his military uniform to the sessions on purpose. Did he trust his dream to the democratic process? Decisively. With his life and reputation at stake, he took the helm and steered the boat, bow to the wind, eventually gathered competing voices around him (Hamilton and Jefferson), and finally retired to Mount Vernon, confident that the lovers of tyranny had been pushed aside and reform minded people, in a democracy, would do just fine without him.
But wait. Now we have Barack Obama as President.
Someone reminded me recently that Obama, during his campaign for the Presidency, repeatedly promised to make the healthcare process transparent, but then turned around and made sure it was transacted behind closed doors. I could not let this stand untouched, so I jotted down my ideas. And lo, a blog sprang forth.
1. Backroom brokering.
Obama did not fail to tell us and Congress in general, but clear, terms what he wanted in healthcare. Remember the President does not write the laws. Recall Hillary’s attempt to forge a plan for her husband early in Bill Clinton’s term, without help from Congress, resulting in failure.
I expect Obama thought that if his party legislators would come up with a good program, it would look better coming from Congress without him trying to slam dunk it. By personally standing back, Obama probably made a strategic mistake. It gave the Republicans an opportunity and a stage for a cacophony of criticism, charging inept and unfair handling by the Democrat legislators. What many overlook is that the Democrats, in shaping the House and Senate bills, did the "behind closed doors" thing as standard procedure. So what is new? The Democrats complained loudly about the Republican Congresses under Bush doing exactly the same thing.
2. Railroading
The Republicans are having great fun, saying Obama is trying to ram a bad bill down the American people's throat if they go the "reconciliation" route to bypass the filibuster blockade. Note that the filibuster rule is not standard parliamentary procedure; it is a concession the Senate at one point allowed in to protect the minority's chance to publicly register strong opposition over controversial issues. What is so offensive about setting this unusual concession aside? --that is, going around it, to revert to normal parliamentary procedure where matters are decided and the majority takes the day. How can a majority vote of duly elected legislators somehow be a ramming of things down our throat? (This could open up discussion of "tyranny of the majority,' but to eliminate majority voting would be to amputate the legs of democracy).
Democrats were voted into majority position in the last congressional election when healthcare reform was a top issue. The Republican noise sounds like sour grapes to me. For the majority to try to pass a law to implement a campaign promise should be expected. If what they come up with is not what the minority of "duly elected members" wanted, the minority has a chance in the next election to turn the Democrats out. The opposition has less than one year to wait. Elections ought to mean something.
3. Public Confusion.
How does one explain why several recent polls show a majority of Americans disliking the proposed healthcare bills when only months earlier, in the summer before the 2008 election, the polls were giving an opposite reading?
The current negative polls are not unanimous. Nevertheless, the Republicans are relying on their "chosen" polls for the keystone of their opposition. Polls have a reputation for swaying in the wind. Note that historians do not treat polls as very useful primary material. Polls tend to reflect what their questions solicit. If the public is confused about what is actually in the proposed health care legislation, and the legislators, "experts," and the Congressional Office of the Budget (traditionally relied on as an objective data collection agency) contradict each other in predicting the bill's future financial impact, then the debate becomes nothing better than varied opinions. I interpret any shifting in the polls as a reflection of confusion on the issue. I attribute this confusion to three things:
First: Obama's failure to take strong-armed leadership and go "to the people" as other Presidents have done with their favorite but controversial desires. Two quick examples: Wilson touring the country to promote the League of Nations embraced in the peace treaty after WWl; and more recently, Bush, who tried the same with his desire to deep six social security.
Second: Disingenuous Republican flag waving about Socialism (there is no socialism in the plan--see my blog on this).
Third: Republican ridicule of the bills' voluminous length with the silly charge that the legislators could not possibly read that much. I ask my students to read nearly that much every semester, and they don't have any staff to help them.
4. My Advice and Predictions.
The Republicans would do well to recognize the hypocrisy of trying to play both sides of the fence--pretending they have a better plan while simultaneously saying they want the government to stay out of it. Candidates for office (both parties), jockeying for a running lane, are proving as rationally undiscerning as the electorate to whom they are pandering.
I think the Republicans are miscalculating. If they succeed in defeating the standing proposed legislation, there will be no starting over from scratch. We will do the same as we did with the immigration reform controversy. There, disagreement prevented legislation until the election was over in 2008. With election jockeying over, we moved on to other crises and forgot about immigration. But with health care continuing “as is” without reform, the election is distant enough that the people will recollect how bad the HMOs are, and it will appear to more people that the Republicans are what Democrats already think of them--whiny obstructionists (as the Republicans thought the Democrats were the whiny obstructionists over Iraq in early 2008).
As of today, Obama is stepping out finally to try to cut through this silliness and call the often fractious Democrats to rally to their electoral calling.
5. Some Historical Perspective.
Let's stuff politics. We have good historical precedent and Constitutional process for how to go about reform. The late 1800s saw commerce and industry creating egregious suffering. The people demanded reform, a (Progressive Reform) movement developed, Presidents of both parties joined the cause, Congress legislated, and the Supreme Court played its part. The same pattern was followed in the 1930s with the New Deal (except the Democrats held on to the Presidency until the glue dried).
The politicians today need to recognize what the people already know--that health care in America is broken and is not going to be fixed without intervention, economic and political philosophy aside. Health care is sick, and the infection is creating debilitating fever in the body politic and general economy. Which is a greater threat to America? -- another municipal terrorist attack, or 30 million people unprotected against life threatening disease and countless numbers of others fighting off bankruptcy while paying more for rent or a mortgage than they have available for food and education.
The Republicans have proven masters at pumping up fear of terrorists. The Democrats don't need to raise any specters of fear. There are paralyzing anxieties facing all of us every day, fears more tangible that the Democrats could tap into if they had the skills. Where are the golden-tongued William Jennings Bryans and the wordsmithing Abraham Lincolns when we need them? Are we left with only Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, and John Boehner as our prophets?
6. My Final Shots
I don’t understand the objection to requiring all to have health insurance. No one complains about other instances where insurance is required for public safety or general social benefit, i.e., automobile insurance, employers' workers’ compensation.
I consider healthcare to be a fundamental individual right as included in the first and third of the three inalienable rights listed in Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence (life and the pursuit of happiness). To put it plainly, I (reluctantly) trust the government more than private industry. Private industry cares nothing about my well-being. At least with the government and its bureaucratic clumsiness and inefficiency, the voters can have a say at fixing the problems which in this forum are not hidden by the sneaky, unethical, gouging, greedy capitalistic private sector, over which you and I have no control.
As for the complaint that Obama's plan will raise premiums; the HMO's will never be outdone at this skill. The idea that "the market will take care of itself" is a lousy bet. Lately the market seems to be handled by crooked accountants, inept CEO's, and profit blinded, manipulating financiers.
Both the "left" and the "right" have lost their way. Let's you and I lead a mutiny and take back the ship, and apologize to George Washington and associates for messing up the experiment they crafted for us to take care of.
Labels: Barack Obama, Declaration of Independence, Democrats, Filibuster, Founding Fathers, George Washington, Health care plan, HMOs, Polls, Reconciliation, Republicans, Socialism., Tyranny of the majority
posted by Doug at
11:03 AM
|
0 Comments
