SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Where's the Obama I Voted For?

THE TREATMENT JANUARY 21, 2010

Where's the Obama I Voted For?

BY JONATHAN COHN

If you’ve been a Democrat for more than two or three years, disappointment with your leaders is something that comes rather naturally. From the 1970s until well into the previous decade, the party produced presidents and presidential candidates like Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, and John Kerry. These men weren’t lovable losers. They were just losers. Even the lone winner among them--Bill Clinton--famously and infamously found ways to disappoint.

But then Barack Obama came along. And for the first time, at least in my memory, Democrats had a leader who consistently outsmarted not just his opponents but his supporters as well. Over and over again in the 2008 campaign, those of us rooting for him would panic over his strategy. Over and over again, Obama proved us wrong. He had an uncanny ability to block out the noise and confound Beltway perceptions, to ignore the ups and downs of the news cycle in order to pursue broader goals. Even for me, somebody who generally resisted the Obama kool-aid, it was something to behold.

I remember the sensation most vividly during the financial crisis of September--when John McCain suspended his campaign and suggested canceling a scheduled debate, in order to return to Washington. Suggesting that a president should be able to campaign and govern simultaneously, Obama rebuffed the proposal--a move for which, I was sure, nervous voters would punish him. Instead, the public rallied to Obama and rejected McCain. They saw a leader who was unflappable, who had his own sense of direction, and who could manage a crisis.

This cool demeanor became his trademark and, eventually, supporters took to emailing around a photoshop image every time political trouble appeared. If you're on a progressive mailing list, chances are you saw it a few dozen times--a picture of Obama giving a speech, with the caption “Everybody Chill the F*** Out. I’ve Got This.”

Tuesday night, as the returns from Massachusetts came in, I was waiting for the president or his advisers to say something along those lines. Everybody knew how the night would go: Martha Coakley was going to lose Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts Senate seat. With it would go the Democrats’ ability to break Republican filibusters. And her opponent, Scott Brown, was already promising to block health care reform when it came up for its final vote--once the House and Senate were done negotiating a compromise version.

It was a dire situation but not, necessarily, a fatal one. Options were available--most obviously having the House pass the Senate bill, sending that measure to the president for signature, and then enacting some amendments via the reconciliation process (in which only 51 votes would be necessary for passage). But the shock of losing Kennedy’s Massachusetts seat was sure to unnerve the Democrats: Pundits were bound to declare health care reform dead and members of Congress, who always spook easily, were bound to panic. Somebody needed to devise a counter-strategy, establish some talking points, and keep the process moving along.

Somebody, in short, needed to say “Everybody Chill the F*** Out. I’ve Got This.”

 

But particularly in those first precious hours of media coverage, there appeared to be no resolute talking points from the White House--and no resolute talking heads to give them. Instead we heard from Republicans who thought health care reform should go away and Democrats who, more or less, seemed incline to agree. This was even true on Democrat-friendly MSNBC, where hosts seeking balance had to read aloud statements issued earlier in the day--and the strongest ones came from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was admirably standing her ground more or less alone.

Obama's advisers made the rounds the next morning, but, even then, the direction seemed vague and cautious. David Axelrod promised that the president wouldn’t drop health care reform, arguing (correctly) that it was part of why people elected Obama and a factor in the economic struggles they faced. But there were no hints of how, exactly, the president planned to proceed--or what, exactly, he expected of his supporters in Congress.

Obama himself later gave an interview to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, but there too the instruction was hazy: We should push forward with health care reform, he said, concentrating on areas of core agreement. But what did he mean by that? House-Senate negotiations had already reduced the bill, mostly, to areas of core agreement. Did he want to winnow further--and, if so, how? To include Republicans? To ease anxieties among Senate moderates or House liberals?

Meanwhile, the chaos in Congress only got worse, with liberal members of the House--the ones most committed to the idea of health care reform--rejecting all of the obvious ways forward. Barney Frank said passing the Senate bill, and then fixing it with reconciliation, would seem to snub the voters. Raul Grijalva suggested breaking up the bill into parts, then sending them over to the Senate one-by-one. By late afternoon, health care reform looked to be dead. Not in trouble, mind you. Dead. And still the White House's intentions were unclear.

 

Second-guessing political decisions is not something I like to do--at least not in print. Ask me whether Medicare should pay less for surgical procedures and I will give you my opinion with conviction. But ask me whether a political figure made the smart call by confronting an opponent, and I’ll probably demur. That’s because politics so often comes down to difficult judgment calls--and so often involves things happening behind the scenes.

And maybe that's what's happening here. My limited sources tell me only so much. But the frustration with the administration was palpable among Democrats today. Members of Congress and their staffs were asking the same questions I was: What does the president want? How badly does he want it? A lot of the legislators ended up running for the exits. And while lack of a clear party line from the White House surely wasn't the reason for Democratic panic on Wednesday--the political anger behind the Massachusetts election is real enough--it doesn't appear to have made that panic less likely, either.

In the end, the panic subsided, at least a little bit. As Ezra Klein notes, Democrats actually discovered some resolve by day's end. Frank ended up taking back his initial comments, in an interview with Talking Points Media, suggesting that perhaps passing the Senate bill was possible if there was a way to guarantee fixes through reconciliation. Over on the Senate side, Kent Conrad--a bellwether for moderates--told The Hill he was open to such thinking. There was also talk of putting together a newer, slimmer alternative--a measure that, however disappointing, would still bring relief to millions while also building a foundation for more reforms later.

That's good news, or as good as can be expected at this point. But if health care reform is to be salvaged--and, I'll be honest, I'm not terribly optimistic right now--it will take something more. It's going to take the president showing the resolve and leadership that got him elected. The last 36 hours have made me doubt that he will. But, lord knows, he's proven me wrong before. Maybe he'll do it again.

Update: I finally read the full transcript of Obama's interview with Stephanopoulos, which wasn't available when I first wrote this item. And he's actually better than the snippets I'd seen before. The key passage--where he talks about coalescing around "core elements"--still seems soft. But he's unapologetic about pursuing health care, suggesting that it was a major crisis and that the only way to solve it was to tackle it with a comprehensive plan. Also of note: White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs, speaking to MSNBC on Wednesday evening, pointed to passage of the Senate bill as a possible strategy. Maybe the White House is finding its footing after all.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 65 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

65 comments

"...And that is why the same old Washington textbook campaigns just won't do in this election. That's why not answering questions ‘cause we are afraid our answers won't be popular just won't do. That's why telling the American people what we think they want to hear instead of telling the American people what they need to hear just won't do. Triangulating and poll-driven positions because we're worried about what Mitt or Rudy might say about us just won't do. If we are really serious about wining this election Democrats, we can't live in fear of losing it. This party - the party of Jefferson and Jackson; of Roosevelt and Kennedy - has always made the biggest difference in the lives of the American people when we led, not by polls, but by principle; not by calculation, but by conviction; when we summoned the entire nation to a common purpose - a higher purpose. And I run for the Presidency of the United States of America because that's the party America needs us to be right now. A party that offers not just a difference in policies, but a difference in leadership. A party that doesn't just focus on how to win but why we should. A party that doesn't just offer change as a slogan, but real, meaningful change - change that America can believe in. That's why I'm in this race. That's why I am running for the Presidency of the United States of America - to offer change that we can believe in." - Barack Obama, Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, November 2007 The same advice that Senator Obama gave us, President Obama needs to hear. You can't win an election by living in fear of losing it. Democrats aren't going to change anything ever, if they can never make a decision without worrying what a Republican will say to attack them about it.

- acria multa

January 21, 2010 at 12:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Axelrod said it, that Democrats were caught napping in Massachusetts. Could it be that Obama had no plan B, that it was Coakley/HCR or zip. That would be a most remarkable political blunder from the Obama which everybody knows channels politics even in his sleep. It could then be the undoing of Barack Obama. Hard to believe, that. But you're right, it's very uncharacteristic the way Obama is acting now. I hope by morning he has recovered his game plan.

- Tgossard

January 21, 2010 at 12:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama's not from Mass. and I wonder if he knew what an empty (girl's) suit Coakley would turn out to be. How could he? The Dem establishment picked her. But they should have sensed something was going wrong a few weeks ago. Mass. was not destined to be a catastrophe.

- ironyroad

January 21, 2010 at 1:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks for the thoughtful, introspective piece, Jonathan. Brown didn't win because of Republican strength. He won because the Prez has revealed himself to be an insiderish, go-along-to-get-along leader. Brown didn't win because of Republican voters. Brown won because DEMOCRATS voted for him. That's why I voted for Brown. And, having conversations at work and at the gym and with friends here in the Boston 'burbs...I am not alone. My gay friends have abandoned Obama en masse. Middle class people see him setting up the Hoover to suck, suck, suck money from us to send to both the poorest AND the wealthiest. People are fed up. I heard the phrase "send a message" a lot. And THESE are just the registered Democrats. I empathize with Jonathan's wish that he can pull a Clinton...that he can take this defeat and from it learn to fight. But, I just don't think it's in him........

- Tilghman

January 21, 2010 at 9:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tilghman, I'm fascinated by your position. It sounds as if your vote for Brown was out of protest. But of what exactly? That Obama has not been progressive enough? Or too progressive? It seems to me that if you voted for Obama, you agreed with his main political beliefs. He has certainly acted towards those beliefs enormously more than any Republican has. If he hasn't been progressive enough it is because of the political reality of not having the votes in congress. I cannot fathom how any Democrat who actually understands what liberalism stands for could have voted for Brown. Even if out of protest, the only real political accomplishment will be a chance at getting a health bill even less liberal than would otherwise have been possible.

- elirector

January 21, 2010 at 9:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, elirector, I "understand" what liberalism stands for, but not everyone registers as a Democrat because they are a liberal. I suppose I fall into that category. Funny thing about voting in Massachusetts--since I voted for a Republican, I think I'm now listed as one. At any rate, I voted for Obama because I thought I'd give him a chance. I'm just starting out in my career and not really a partisan person. I'm just waiting for a leader who fulfills his or her promise to be a President for the middle class, instead of the wealthy and the welfare-d. Both parties disappoint perennially. Thought Obama might "change" that. So far, I judge myself wrong in that thinking. If the Prez gets the "message" and changes his orientation, all the better. But I doubt it.

- Tilghman

January 21, 2010 at 10:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have a humble suggestion to all who would listen, including those (like Jonathan Cohn) who have so poured their heart and soul into health care reform that they see its delay or demise as unmitigated disaster -- take a deep breath and think strategically, for a moment, instead of tactically. The voting public, both in Massachusetts and around the country, has had their fill of health care minutae: individual mandates, public options, "bending the curve", Cornhusker kickbacks and the like. A large majority of voters have health care, generally like it and generally dislike the hassles and increasing out-of-pocket costs (though they generally miss the impact on their wallets since the health care is deducted from paychecks). Most these people also don't think that they will lose their health care and don't see the worst-case scenarios that sympathetic politicians propound and policy analysts study. This is logical fallacy of the first order, but it's reality in these here United States. If you asked most people if they believed they were going to get a cold this winter, they would probably also answer "no". Given the incredible level of economic anxiety in this country, and the perception that the US Congress has spent the last 9 months battling over arcana, Democrats need to pivot almost immediately to an agenda of job creation, effective financial regulation, long-term deficit reduction and recouping the costs of the financial rescues of 2008-09. They were poised to do just that, and such a strategy should sufficiently resonate with unhappy independent voters and disillusioned liberals to at least preserve the party's overall majorities in the House and Senate. Scott Brown's election threw the strategy for a loop, but it should not throw off the timing of the pivot for more than two weeks or so. For health care, that means one of two things -- either the House sucks it up and passes the Senate bill as-is with the expectation that they will try to fix it this year or next, or (if the votes aren't there) the leadership decides to shelve comprehensive health care for the time being. Then the House, Senate and White House can attempt to fashion a smaller, ostensibly more bipartisan bill over the course of the next 6 months BUT NOT AS A MAJOR PRIORITY. Bring it to a vote before the August recess if the votes are there; if the Republicans still won't play (because they don't think there is any upside, or because they are mad about the hammering that they have been receiving from Democrats over their efforts to obstruct financial services reform) then pass the dang thing with Democratic votes only and let Democrats at least claim that Republicans just want to allow insurance companies to discriminate against sick people. One other thing about losing the filibuster-proof majority -- I think that Harry Reed allowed Mitch McConnell to maximize his united 40-vote block and never actually press for cloture because he and the Administration felt that they needed legislative accomplishments in their first two years. Now that they got a fair amount of those accomplishments, it's time to call Republicans' bluff and get them to actually attempt to filibuster the jobs and financial reform agenda. No, they don't need to stand around and read phone books all day, but they do need to actually have parliamentary procedure dragging out votes. When this is type of process is highlighted for the media, people tend to notice and get mad about the shenanigans. Although not an obvious parallel, this is how it played out during the government shutdown in 1995, to the Republicans' detriment. As citizens, we have a right to be dismayed at how this process has gone. As people who think and comment on politics, we have an obligation to think hard about how to move on.

- wildboy

January 21, 2010 at 10:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Obama had balls he would have said this issue is so important to pass, that if meant he would only have one term in office, so be it, and if the Democrats in the House didn't pass the Senate bill, and quickly, he had no need of them and having Republicans control the house means essentially the same. Then he should have been spending every waking hour bringing in every Democratic congressman and reading them the riot act, join us or fuck off. Did you come to Congress just to enjoy the perks of being one, or did you come to help lead. Are you a Democrat or a placeholder? This act would be dominating the news cycle: Obama gets balls. I defy anyone to say that this wouldn't work. It would take the wind right out of the Republican sails.

- blackton

January 21, 2010 at 11:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tilghman said "That's why I voted for Brown. And, having conversations at work and at the gym and with friends here in the Boston 'burbs...I am not alone. My gay friends have abandoned Obama en masse." And elirector, "fascinated by his position", asked "It sounds as if your vote for Brown was out of protest. But of what exactly?" Well, Scott is a Cosmo's male centerfold champ and we're talking about voters from the Boston gay community... It's all about demographics, if you ask me.

- Ideaot

January 21, 2010 at 11:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But, blackie, he doesn't. At least none that big. Besides, if I were a D who voted no on healthcare, I'd tell him that it was easy for him to beat the hell out of me, but my constituents (remember them?) didn't want this Godawful amalgam of crap masquerading as "reform." Guess I'll take the "f*ck off" option, thanks. Never mind my re-election, my homies are agin' it. Why do you insist they are wrong?

- butchie b

January 21, 2010 at 11:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What blackton said.

- sdemuth

January 21, 2010 at 12:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This abortion of a healthcare bill doesn't address any of the core problems with healthcare: 1. consumers of healthcare don't buy healthcare today -- misaligned incentives 2. providers of healthcare are not held accountable to outcomes but rather focus on fee for service -- another misaligned incentive 3. trial lawer abuse -- drives up costs 4. majority of healthcare cost are related to chronic lifestyle/behavioural choices --- this bill doesn't do enough here 5. Increasing access to healthcare without dealing seriously with quality/cost is stupid. Healthcare a 'normal' economic good -- easier acces = more costs. That is what is happening in MA as costs now running amok. This bill doesn't cut costs at all, best case is slows the rate of increase -- what BS I understand why liberals like it --- more Gov is better for them and they don't have to pay for it anyway -- however, the private sector independents and republicans that will pay for it are against it. It will fail Don't pretend what good for liberal parasites is good for US. Actually, maybe you should continue to pretend -- else your self-loathing would overcome you.

- mr_rationale

January 21, 2010 at 12:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

please butchie, why the hell did the homies elect a Democrat in the first place and not expect them to act like a Democrat? If they are not going to act like Democrats, then why did they run as them? You can't possibly have it both ways, feed at the Democratic trough, but vote Republican. I am not for rigid ideology, but for God's sake, if you are against health care for people who have cancer, or for the poor, then why in the world are you a Democrat? Likewise, if I were to vote for a Republican, it would be with the expectation that they would act like Republicans. I have voted for Republicans, like Tom Kean and Christie Todd Whitman, and they acted like what I believe good Republicans believe in, fiscal responsibility, tight and competent management, etc. And besides, the homies are against it? According to the wishes of the homies we should also leave Afghanistan and Iraq, but we know that would be a disaster. Why is it only when Republicans go against the "will" of the majority, it is called leadership, but when Democrats do it, it is arrogance. Besides, I was in favor of Bush's tax cut in 2000, not because I agreed with it, I believed it would fail, but he was President and should be given the opportunity to try his agenda. Why are only Republicans allowed to push their agenda? 17% of the US economy goes towards health care and it will only go up. Americans are mentally defective if they think we can continue this trajectory on the eve of the retirement of the baby boom generation. The Japanese are older than us, have more retirees, yet still spend only 9% of their GNP on health care, with better outcomes. HMMM... and which relies on the "market" and which doesn't?

- blackton

January 21, 2010 at 12:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

hey Blackton, what are you doing in Oaxaca? Please come back to advise Obama and pound on the pundits and on the wimpy dems! i am not kidding, I mean it! Why aren't there more people with such passion and eloquence among our elected officials?

- Idefix

January 21, 2010 at 1:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

thanks idefix, to be honest, I am the only expat down here who cares, the rest of them are too busy enjoying life. Teaching at the Universities down here doesn't make you rich, but it is rewarding, and we have full health care courtesy of the Mexican federal government. If is funny, when I quit my job in the states back in 98, I invested my company retirement money in the stock market and have seen it go nowhere (I have less now then when I started). However, back in 88 I bought some land in the countryside (I had a delusion of maybe building a cabin, which I never did), was mocked by my friends in NYC area (one calls it the commode land) and saw the price for that plummet until recently, with the discovery of natural gas in the Marcellus shale, and now I am being offered multiples of what I paid for it, the same with the Apartment I bought in Shanghai back in 2000 (simply for a place to live, or actually bring women back to). When I tried to do the intelligent thing (invest in the stock market) I failed, when I didn't invest but bought for other reasons, I have succeeded beyond my expectations. If there is a lesson in here, I have no idea what it is, except I know it is not to say "I got mine, screw everyone else." I know I ain't in this for myself, whether it passes or fails won't affect me at all, but good lord, it is still my country too. Unless health care is gotten under control, all of America will be screwed, Republicans as well as Democrats.

- blackton

January 21, 2010 at 1:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You saw the Obama you wanted. And Obama has tried hard to be the Obama you -- and others within the Beltway consensus -- want. Which is where he has gone wrong. What the beltway media and wonkatocracy wants, and too many establishment Democrats keep trying to give them (confusing their approval with that of the voters) is someone who can, in terms of policy, make "the middle" work. But you can't make effective, or, frankly, popular, policy from the incoherent middle. Republicans know this -- they never try, as Obama has done, to actually govern from the middle. They govern from the Right (making sure their base's economic interests are served first and foremost) all the while making plausable, but mostly untruthful, or, more charitably, incorrect, arguments for why doing so actually serves the middle. Clinton knew how to speak to the middle, but he understood that there was no effective split-the-difference policy that could satisfy their entirely contradictory, incoherent, and mostly inarticulate desires (tax cuts AND more aggressive military spending plus secure entitlement benefits, less regulation AND strong consumer protections, etc., etc.) The difference between Clinton and Obama is that Clinton had a genuine understanding of, commitment to, sympathy with, desire to effectively serve certain constituencies; young people from the striving lower middle class, women, minorities, workers displaced by globalization, small business, etc. (As a Southerner, though, he was less attuned to organized Labor than many wanted). Policy-wise, he was willing to shift Left or Right as necessary to get what he could for those constituencies within the context of the political hand he was dealt. The beltway concensus was that this was a sign of shifty character. But, the constituencies who put him into office, and the broader middle class, received real benefit -- a genuine improvement over the conditions they had led voters to reject Bush l. The Beltway concensus, and the opposition, saw a may who wasn't committed to principle. Most traditional Democratic constituencies -- and that incoherent middle -- increasingly saw him as a man who was committed to people. The Beltway said he pandered and mocked his claim to "feel our pain." His growing number of supporters saw a Beltway establishment that refused to recognize our interests as legitimate and mocked our pain. Obama does the opposite -- he quite often speaks, in stirring terms, to the base, but so far he has not tried to govern with their interests foremost in mind. In fact, Obama appears to share the beltway's patronizing, rather than genuinely respectful, attitude toward traditional Democratic constituencies. Rather than seeing them as constituencies with genuinely important interests that must be served (and believing, as Republicans I think often genuinely do, that in serving the interests of his party's base constituencies the broader interest will also be served), he appears to see them as constituencies who don't understand their own interests, much less the broader interest, and must be educated. Plus, and most important, he, like his Beltway peers, see these constituencies' interests as incompatible with the party's best interest -- which they believe is best served by mollifying the ever-shifting, incoherent "middle." (Is it any wonder that health care reform has turned into such an incoherent mess, impossible to sell or make a logical argument for?) The base, this administration apparently believes, has nowhere else to go and for that reason can be ignored. Furthermore, taking the base and its interests seriously, they believe, will cost them the middle. This leads them to pursue policies, like the Senate version of Health Reform, designed first and foremost to not offend the middle (by appearing to be too responsive to the base), rather than effective policies that serve the base and the broader interests. Also, since they share the same lack of respect for their base as their opponents, they, at best, try to buy the base off with a little welfare -- which both offends the base and arouses the resentment of the middle. As a result, the Democrats at the moment would have a hard time selling free food to a starving man. By the time they finished praising the 5 page eligibility document the Blue State Republicans and Blue Dogs have insisted on, arguing for the recipient to sign a document freeing the manufacturer of the imitation food product they're peddling from liability, and praising their own generousity, the poor fellow would most likely be dead. Obama

- esmense

January 21, 2010 at 1:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"obama get balls" Now that's a headline i'd like to see. But then, I'm setting myself up for more homophobic harrassment à la Ideaot.

- Tilghman

January 21, 2010 at 1:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I see the troll from the peanut gallery has chimed in. "what, me learn from udder countries, me Amurcan, me no ferner." Talk about projection of self-loathing, Mr. Rationale fits the bill. Dude, go back to your Ayn Rand "greed is good" website and pretend to be a master of the universe, no one here is buying. This bill is a compromise of a compromise, but it is a step in the right direction, and providing access to health care for those without it is an intrinsic good regardless of costs, something tells me if you got cancer you wouldn't want your insurance company to deny you service simply because of the possibility that you contributed to the risk factors. But of course we can provide access for all and reduce costs, Taiwan does it, at very efficient means with great outcomes, and they modeled it after our own Medicare "But me learn from those type of ferners? Impossibul, they am orientals, not like pure white peeple." trial lawyer abuse, yeah that canard. Are the tort reformers right? Well, let’s look at Texas. Several years ago, the state passed a stringent medical malpractice law that capped awards for pain and suffering at $250,000, and brought the number of malpractice lawsuits down dramatically. So the cost of health care in Texas must also be down, you suppose, since doctors don’t face the same malpractice threats as the rest of the country. Eh, No. In fact, Texas is home to three of the top ten most expensive cities in the country to receive health care: McAllen, Harlingen and Corpus Christi. In each of these cities, every Medicare patient is costing the country more than $10,000 a year (a couple thousand more than the national average). So if defensive medicine against the threat of malpractice suits isn’t driving up costs, what is? Harvard Medical School surgeon Atul Gawande got a candid answer to this question from a general surgeon in McAllen, Texas: “Come on,” the general surgeon finally said. “We all know these arguments are [BS]. There is overutilization here, pure and simple.” Doctors, he said, were racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures. The surgeon came to McAllen in the mid-nineties, and since then, he said, “the way to practice medicine has changed completely. Before, it was about how to do a good job. Now it is about ‘How much will you benefit?’ ” –Atul Gawande, The NewYorker While tort reform like Texas' won't improve the cost of our health care, changing our charge-per-service structure just might. In Taiwan, the nation spends only 6.2 percent of GDP on health services. Doctors are on salary and don't charge fee for services. Taiwan, if it were larger, would be cleaning our clocks, but go ahead, call all the people there parasites. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/07/taiwangetshealthy

- blackton

January 21, 2010 at 2:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why do people insist on government-provided benefits? The federal government has only three ways to get money to provide benefits: (1) the most obvious and honest is to tax us to get the money; (2) the Federal Reserve creates the money (causing the devaluing of our savings; i.e., confiscation of wealth); or (3) it borrows the money (which merely delays the imposition of one of the other two). Government creates no real wealth but rather can only redistribute wealth. Some things we might want government to provide, such as defense (not offense, defense) and it does so VERY inefficiently but we probably have little choice. Most other services are better provided in free markets (and without all the government overhead). "Free minds and free markets" should be our motto, not "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Wealth is created ONLY in free markets; the liberal mindset is that a fixed amount of wealth exists and we need to "spread the wealth around" (to labor unions and politically connected bankers) to make life fairer. But who decides what is fair? Obama? Bush? Pelosi? Reid? Each citizen should decide for themselves and provide for themselves and their families. Want real change? Then vote Libertarian; at least try it. Dale Ogden, Libertarian, Candidate for Governor of California; http://www.daleogden.org http://www.daleogden.net

- dalefogden

January 21, 2010 at 2:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dalefogden, wrong website, suggest you post on mothership website going to planet looneyland.

- blackton

January 21, 2010 at 3:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tilghman, I wouldn't be as kind as elirector. I'm not fascinated by your position. I'm sorry, but I'm disgusted by it. "He won because the Prez has revealed himself to be an insiderish, go-along-to-get-along leader." I don't know what that means. Inside what? Go along with what? Are you talking about banks? You think that Brown, who will vote in lockstep with the GOP, as all GOP Senators do now no matter what, will take on Wall Street? He opposed even Obama's modest bank tax proposal. I guess that escaped your attention. Meanwhile, we were on our way to financial regulatory reform, which you just helped derail, so thanks. "My gay friends have abandoned Obama en masse." Because he's not as stalwart on gay rights as you would prefer? I agree, but he's a hell of a lot better than any Republican on this issue. I don't think gay rights is high on Mitch McConnell's to-do list, and Republican Senators do his bidding. So, you just dealt a blow to gay rights too. "Middle class people see him setting up the Hoover to suck, suck, suck money from us to send to both the poorest AND the wealthiest." What are you talking about? Are you paying more taxes under Obama? If so, you're not in the middle class, because Obama reduced the middle class tax burden in the stimulus. So, what money is being sucked away from you to help poor people? Are you talking about health care reform? That's not about the poor. Medicaid covers the poor. Health care reform is about the only group of people you apparantly care about -- the middle class -- and those in the middle class who can't afford health coverage, who can't obtain it because they're sick, who are underinsured, or who will lose what they have if they lose their job. So, you just helped defeat health care reform for another generation. You and your friends had a busy day Tuesday, doing a lot of good for the country! You're "fed up." With what, you don't articulate, but let me hazard a guess. You're fed up with the economy and the jobs situation, and, like a child, you want everything to be fixed immediately, which is impossible. When it's not fixed immediately, you blame those who are in charge, and reward the other side, even though the other side is the main reason that relief hasn't come as big, as fast, and as strong as you would want in the first place. It's typical voter behavior -- impatient, ignorant, illogical, and counterproductive. Sorry for the harsh words, but you're not the only one who is fed up.

- jhildner1

January 21, 2010 at 3:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

blackie, you are rollin' today, brother. We've already talked about the Japanese system long ago, and if we had their system, we would not get their outcomes for many reasons, but we would save $$, I suspect. As for the homies, I was speaking of the D districts and states in which the majority is against THIS health care reform effort. As is Scott Brown, but he voted for the MA bill passed under Romney that does some of the same things this one purports to do. This bill has real differences from the MA bill. In any case, even in MA, 97% are covered (good) but costs continue to go up at a good clip (bad). Why would you expect Ds to vote for this bill if it means they'd get beat? Politicians are that for a reason - they like winning. I agree that we need to get away from fee for service medicine, and that effort should be coupled with a real effort on tort reform, because defensive medicine (overuse) is killing us, and fear of suit is one reason why. As to when your party will grow a pair, I suspect it will be no time soon.

- butchie b

January 21, 2010 at 3:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wildboy, I have trouble thinking "strategically," because, for me, health care reform is the whole point. Startegy is but a means to an end, and health care reform is a major substantive end. The end is not merely electing more Democrats who will then proceed not to accomplish anything important. I'm finding out that apparently there are a lot of liberals who don't really care about health care reform. If they did, they would not even consider pissing away this unheard-of opportunity, especially having come this far. But House Democrats *and* Obama are considering just that. Unreal. Anyway, yes, fine, pivot to a "jobs agenda," whatever that means. I have an idea of what it means. It means a lot of ineffectual, small-bore garbage that won't really do anything but, if we're lucky, coincide with a jobs recovery and so seem to be responsible for it. A real jobs agenda means effective stimulus, which people aren't sold on, in part because Obama gave away too much to the GOP on the first go-around, and so wasted a lot of it, and because Obama did a crappy job selling it. And now, there's not a lot of potential debt left to work with, and everyone naturally starts to get worried about inflation even if more stimulus were politically possible, which it isn't. So, yeah, let's focus like a laser on doing the minimum plus meaningless gestures, and sell it as a golden age of legislative achievement. The point is, as you point out, we could easily do that *and* pass health care reform now. Obama needs to grow a pair, as has been suggested, and House Dems need to get their heads out of their asses, and pass the Senate bill now. They don't like the Senate bill. Fine. Me neither. (I don't like the House bill either, which is hardly some pure, gleaming piece of progressivism.) But it's important, it's a big accomplishment, and a hell of a lot better than nothing. And, then, it's not too late to sell it between now and November as addressing economic insecurity, which, you know, it actually does!

- jhildner1

January 21, 2010 at 3:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

esmense: Give me a break. Clinton accomplished nothing other than gutting welfare and presiding over an economic bubble. For all his pain-feeling, he didn't in fact accomplish anything for his constituencies, although he tried and failed to pass a health care reform bill that was just slightly to the left of the Senate bill, and got nowhere near where Obama got, and proceeded to lose both houses of Congress. Great model. I'll give him credit for balancing the budget in overheated economic times, but such action is not what's called for in today's economy. So, your post is basically about Obama's style, and your sense that he talks down to ordinary people. I disagree. I do think that he's been a surprisingly lousy salesman on his main initiatives. It's not because he's a snob, though. It's because he underestimated the need for greater communication, and has been mostly silent. Anyway, you were a huge Hillary supporter, and given that Mark Penn advised her, I doubt that health care reform would have gotten as far as it has if she had been elected. Penn's mantra is always, "Don't do anything," a message Bill took to heart from '94 on.

- jhildner1

January 21, 2010 at 3:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, hell JHildner, there you and Rhubarbs go ahead and want to ruin it all for me. Democrats just need to get out of policy mode and into politics mode before ere long. EJ Dionne's comparison of the health care bill to a glass of milk on the kitchen counter is most apt -- at some point, it starts to curdle and is no longer palatable. I don't think we're reached that point yet, but we're going to reach it in an awful hurry. The White House and House Dems need to pull their heads out of their rear ends and get the Senate bill passed ASAP, but if they don't then they can't spend the rest of the year trying to massage the same bill to passage. Sure, a smaller Dem majority after 2010 won't account for much, but it would account for a fair piece more than a Republican-controlled Congress. Then we will all see non-stop partisan warfare that would make the Clinton Impeachment look like Sesame Street.

- wildboy

January 21, 2010 at 3:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If they did, they would not even consider pissing away this unheard-of opportunity, especially having come this far. But House Democrats *and* Obama are considering just that. Unreal." Why am I not surprised? Obama never really believed in anything but snobish political pragmatism, to the point of creating a health care bill that is really an insurance companies' rent for life bill and dropping it afterwards... "It's not because he's a snob, though. It's because he underestimated the need for greater communication, and has been mostly silent." This is a strange judgment, considering we're talking about no one else but roaring and soaring Obama.

- Ideaot

January 21, 2010 at 4:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ideaot -- That's just it, he hasn't roared and soared about health care -- or any matter of domestic policy, really -- for some time. We could have used a lot *more* roaring and soaring, if you ask me, which helped him win the election as I recall.

- jhildner1

January 21, 2010 at 5:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

By the way, those who say that jobs is the big seller, and health care isn't, because most people have health insurance, miss the fact that most people also have a job. Afraid of losing it? Well, you should then be afraid of losing health coverage too. Health care goes hand-in-hand with arguments about economic security. For the WH and Dems to blow the opportunity to make that arugment is ridiculous. Oh well, I'm through.

- jhildner1

January 21, 2010 at 5:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jhildner1 -- I don't know what you were doing in the 90s, but it doesn't seem likely you were an entry level worker, or woman trying to support a child, in the low wage service sector, or a poor or working class kid looking for a way to pay for college, a displaced worker needing retraining, a sandwich generation woman trying to balance responsibility for a sick child or parent, or both, with work, one of the millions of middle class families, and thousands of businesses, that exited the 80s over-burdened with high interest debt, or, like me, the owner of a small or start up business in need of funding. Clinton pursued policies that specifically targeted and benefitted all of those constituencies. One result was a huge upsurge in small business growth -- the vast majority of it totally separate from the high tech bubble -- with resulting increased job creation. Another was the first increase in real income for those at the lowest end of the wage scale in many decades. Yes, he failed to achieve health care reform. But he did so in a much less favorable environment for reform than Obama faced when he took office. (And, let's also remember that over the last year the Democrats, and this administration, have enjoyed more political power than either party has in anextremely long time -- with control of the White House, the Congress, and an astonishing 60 seat majority in the Senate.) That doesn't mean that there isn't much to criticize about Clinton and his administration. But my point wasn't that there was nothing to criticize, it was that Clinton was committed to serving, as best and pragmatically as he could within the political context of the time, the constituencies that put him in office. All while responding to the broader political demand for fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction.

- esmense

January 21, 2010 at 5:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fine, emense. I don't want to argue about Clinton. I basically agree with you. Obama has fucked up. So had Clinton at this time in his presidency. My point is that I won't be satisfied with another Clinton presidency, especially after Obama had, as you say, the historic opportunity he had. Health care reform is just sitting there on a silver platter waiting for House liberals to get over their high holy selves and deliver it. Obama could have helped things by selling it. He could have helped things yesterday by demanding that the House pass the Senate bill. He could have helped things before Tuesday by not letting the seat get away. He fucked up. I don't think it's because of his agenda or because he's not looking after the right constituencies or whatever. He had the right agenda. He has mishandled it, undersold it, and allowed ignorant fear to take over. Like Cohn says, he's been too slow, too deliberate, too reticent, and he wasn't able to pull it out in time. By the way, I think the "broader demand for fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction" is not good advice today. It was good advice when Clinton was president, when times were good, and, as I say, I give him credit for that. (When times are good, the temptation is to spend more.) When times are bad, reducing spending just makes things worse.

- jhildner1

January 21, 2010 at 5:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I give him credit on the EITC expansion and family and medical leave too. I don't know about the rest of your list. I remember a lot of business about school uniforms and cops on the street, and so forth, which was all a lot of little.

- jhildner1

January 21, 2010 at 5:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Normally I enjoy what Jon Cohn has to say, but this post...I'll be polite and not say what I really think. Except this: Obama is the fucking President. Just because he doesn't act like you want him to act doesn't make him less of a President or a man or anything else. Or less competant. Or less consistent. He's the fucking President. Deal. I never came close to voting for George W. Bush, but I took great umbrage at those who vilified and mocked and belittled him in print and in the streets. Nobody walked a fucking inch in his moccasins, much less a mile. Same goes for Barack Obama. I contributed most of a week's pay to his campaign. That doesn't give me the right to tell him how to do his job. It's his job to do, not mine. Don't you hate it when somebody wants to tell you how to do your job? Imagine being the fucking President and having a fucking 300,000,000-member peanut gallery squawking 24/7. Back off, and let the man work. Trust me: he's got more important shit on his to-do list than be everybody's personal psychotherapist. Fucking people are a bunch of sissy-ass Chicken Littles: "We lost the 60th seat! Health care might not pass in the next three nanoseconds! OMG!!!! The fucking sky is falling!! The fucking Visigoths are crossing the border from Ontario!! Hannibal has sacked Tuscon!" Etc. Get a goddamn grip and start acting like a bunch of adults instead of a spoiled toddler whose pacifier just fell out of the stroller and Mommy hasn't stooped down to pick it up. "Mommy! Mommy! Hurry, Mommy!!" We live in a DEMOCRACY, which means we don't get what we want all the time and that there's a really good reason for that and that, in large part because we don't, we've had it better than 99.9% of the human beings who've ever walked a step, moccasins or not. (But, you ask, how could we possibly have it better if we don't get what we want? Oh, I dunno... let's see: maybe because no one American or group of Americans is as wise as the collective fucking wisdom of the entire society as expressed as fairly as possible--i.e., through the democratic process???) I celebrate Brown's win in Massachusetts as much as I would have celebrated Coakley's, no more, no less. Why? Because it was an ELECTION. That's a beautiful thing! Elections are like the speed of light--they are the same, regardless of the point of view of the observer. That's beautiful! Can't you see that? Eh, well, you can bring a horse to water... Quit being among the sum of the parts and start being part of the WHOLE. Or didn't you listen to a word Obama said during the campaign?

- williamyard

January 21, 2010 at 5:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually, Mr. Yard, we don't live in a democracy, which is a great deal of the problem. If there were not unconstitutional super-majority requirement in the Senate, then we could at least claim to live in a democracy. As it is, the elected representatives of a majority of Americans are not permitted to govern. Whatever that is, democracy it is not. Were the majority actually able to have its way and govern until no longer the majority, you would have a point.

- roidubouloi

January 21, 2010 at 5:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Because we do not live in a pure democracy does not mean we do not live in a democracy. Technically one could argue that we should abolish the Senate and the Supreme Court, because neither reflects equal representation. One could disallow the access to representatives of any and all lobbyists. One could argue that I not be allowed to donate $1000 to Barack Obama because my neighbor is unable to donate $10. However, those and other undemocratic elements are essential to democracy's functioning, until somebody figures out a way to replace them with better tools. I used to use yellow mustard on my hot dogs until I discovered dijon. It's still a hot dog, although it was better with a non-hotdog element (yellow mustard) on it, and even better with a new, improved non-hotdog element (dijon) on it. Hell, dijon is vegan; imagine combining ground pig parts with a vegan condiment! Is that an unholy marriage, or what? And so: I actually like the supermajority. I like the fact that the minority is protected by it. I hope it stays right where it is. But if Congress or SCOTUS or the Goddess of the District of fucking Columbia decides to send it packing, hell, I'm okay with that, too. The supermajority may not be in the Constitution. But just because something is nonconstitutional doesn't make it unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Brown got more votes than Coakley. If it quacks like a duck...

- williamyard

January 21, 2010 at 6:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

hey butchie, I will be honest about one thing, if Bush were running this show, he would have gotten it done a long time ago. His only policy failure was Social Security reform, but that was far, far more radical than what Obama is doing. While I certainly respect yard's opinion, but what is a job (even the President) to peoples' lives? Does anyone seriously believe that but a fraction of the unemployed still have insurance? I live in Oaxaca across the street is a small, modern charity hospital that takes in all comers at no or minimal cost. Mexico has 1/12 the size our the US economy with 1/3 of the population, yet they still nearly match the US in life expectancy, this is a country with even greater obesity and a worse diet than the US. My wife took ill and spent a week in the hospital here and I didn't spend a peso. And work was very understanding as well. I literally risk my life savings whenever I go home to visit the United States, (if I had a heart attack, or serious accident I would be ruined, but luckily my vacation time is short, what is 2 weeks of anxiety compared to daily) I would be better off vacationing in Canada, or Europe, or even China but my family isn't there. We are so far away from minimal standards of decency that I am ashamed of America. The main reason I voted Democrat is for healthcare reform, the Democrats are but one vote away from enacting it. It would be like hiking up Mt. Everest and stopping ten feet away from the summit because a stray cloud is passing overhead and you wanted it to be perfect.

- blackton

January 21, 2010 at 6:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jhildner1 -- I agree with you about the deficit. We face entirely different economic circumstances today. And I agree with you about Obama's performance. We may just see the reasons for his underperformance a little differently. I think he has more faith in the theories of wonks, Beltway insiders and academics than in the real world experience of Democratic constituencies. Focusing on trying to please, mollify and win their approval, rather than genuinely listening to the base and the voters, has led to an impossible to sell, politically incoherent mess.

- esmense

January 21, 2010 at 7:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

esmense: "I Was Ill and You Cared for Me." Matthew 25: 30 I never realized it was an admonition, and should be read as you are wrong to care for those in need as it is a form of welfare. Amazing that after 13 years of Catholic education I got something so simple wrong. Of course Health care is a right, not only is it a right, it is a responsibility, ordained by God himself. If it is not, then we are nothing but animals. So you stick with your Ayn Rand atheism what is in it for me. I guess Jesus needs to hire a new marketing exec. What a silly savior he was.

- blackton

January 21, 2010 at 7:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't deny the force of billyard's comments but I just resent the insulting notion that the votes for Brown in MA are "people's" votes (the people have spoken blah blah) while the millions upon millions of votes from those of us who put in Democratic congresspeople and the president -- and gave them more than working majorities in both houses -- with health care reform as a crucial goal, well, apparently they aren't worth a bucket of warm piss. Aren't our votes "people's votes" too? If not, what the fuck were they? The GOP keeps talking as if "the Democrats" consisted only of the administration and the party in the Congress, and not of the millions of Americans who sent them there. And the Dems seem to almost embrace this emasculation themselves.

- ironyroad

January 21, 2010 at 7:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Excuse me yard for having an opinion about politics. I didn't realize that living in a democracy meant that I wasn't allowed to have an opinion except on election day. I thought it meant the opposite. Moreover, I didn't realize that it was rude to be pissed off at the president, especially the president I voted for, especially the president to whom I contributed a shit-load of money, especially the president I knew before and admired greatly, especially the president who brought tears to my eyes on election night, especially the president whom I talked up endlessly to anyone who would listen, especially the president who awakened a previously dormant sense that maybe, just maybe, this country could accomplish something major and important that involved helping people in need at home rather than killing people overseas. Well, that dream is gone now. Real health care reform is dead for the foreseeable future. If I'm wrong, great. If not, yes, it's a bona fide disaster. (It doesn't bother you at all?) I haven't yelled that the sky is falling before when others have. But that's because the sky wasn't falling before. Now it is. How could you celebrate Brown's victory? Because it was an election? That's absurd. Yes, we have elections in this country. I thought that that was, you know, old news. I guess I have higher expectations from the American political process than merely holding elections. I would like the government to actually do stuff. It's becoming apparent once again -- Clinton's presidency was the last time -- that that's impossible unless it's to wage war or cut taxes, and that our political system is hopelessly dysfunctional. Not much to celebrate there.

- jhildner1

January 21, 2010 at 7:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

By the way yard, the business about not getting what you want most of the time is obvious and understood. I don't expect anything close to my ideal. I expected this, which is far from my ideal, but very important anyway. What really smarts is that there's nothing stopping it now except liberals who are making the slightly less imperfect (the House Bill) the enemy of the good enough for now (the Senate Bill), and effectively abandoning anything that you could call real health care reform in the process. (When they talk about the "little" bill now, they're not talking about expanding coverage -- the whole point.)

- jhildner1

January 21, 2010 at 8:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One thing that's clear is that Ted Kennedy is rolling over in his grave. It would be ironic if that word captured the tragic proportion of this appalling episode -- where Massachusetts Democrats effecitvely kill off the Democratic agenda, including Kennedy's life's work, by replacing him with a Republican nitwit.

- jhildner1

January 21, 2010 at 8:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jhildner, I'll live under ruthless, craven, elected nitwits any day of the week before I live under an enlightened, benevolent king. We get what we deserve--nothing more, nothing less. It may not reflect well upon us, but honesty rarely does. We are a selfish, lazy, stupid people. Are you telling me we deserve something other than selfish, lazy, stupid Senators? If you don't like it, make us less selfish, lazy, and stupid. The Senator part will take care of itself.

- williamyard

January 21, 2010 at 10:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, I think passing health care reform is actually much easier than making us less selfish, lazy, and stupid. All we have to do is make House Democrats less selfish, lazy, and.... Well, second thought, maybe it's not much easier.

- jhildner1

January 21, 2010 at 10:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry, Yard, no quack, no duck. As jhildner pointed out, it is a rather bizarre reading of political life to laud the result in Massachusetts because the people decided while failing to note that the overwhelming majority that sent the current crop of representatives to Congress are effectively denied representation by the rules of the senate. No, just because it isn't in the constitution doesn't make it unconstitutional. But would it not be obvious that the "rules" of conduct in the senate cannot, for example, declare voting by a particular state's senators to be "out of order?" Does it say that in the constitution? No. Does it say anything at all on the subject? No. Yet it is quite clear from the context in which the document was created that all legislators are entitled to vote and that, except as provided in the Constitution itself, their votes are meant to count equally. With corporate money -- no totally unleashed by our Supreme Court that makes a farce out of "interpreting" the Constitution -- the corruption of officals by the prospect of lucrative lobbying jobs, gerrymandering, and all the obstacles to voter registration, we have the appearance of democracy only. As our political system decays under the endless manipulation by the wealthy, we deserve barely more respect than a banana republic. They vote most of the totalitarian states in the world too. So what?

- roidubouloi

January 21, 2010 at 10:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let's try to REALLY be honest here, OK ? The last U.S. President we've had that had any true cojones resulting in success was Harry Truman. Plain and simple. Since then, we've had the following: -- A U.S. General that didn't have to do much because he was lucky enough to be President when the country's economy was at its all-time best; -- A rich playboy that we can't objectively evaluate because his Presidency prematurely ended with too many unanswered questions, specifically on how he would have handled the Vietnam conflict; -- A former Senate Majority Leader that was a true success in pushing through meaningful domestic policy legislation and a true failure in his handling of foreign policy; -- A paranoid schizophrenic; -- An athletic lunkhead who's claims-to-fame were pardoning the felony crimes of the previous President and being a member of the great Warren Commission conspiracy; -- A peanut farmer and former Governor who was academically brilliant but politically inefficient; -- A former B-movie actor who's penchant for economic deregulation contributed largely to our demise as a manufacturing leader in the world and the exporting of thousands of well-paying jobs to Mexico and overseas; -- A former CIA director who's overall philosophy in governing seemed to be along the lines of "the job of a President is to fumble through foreign relations...let Congress deal with the economy..."; -- A former Rhodes scholar who shrewdly navigated his way through mostly-decent economic policy decisions (except for the disastrous NAFTA agreement), but was iffy on foreign policy and tried to emulate John F. Kennedy too much in his private life; -- The son of the former CIA director and President who's philosophy in governing was pretty much along the lines of his Dad, with the added benefit of starting an illegal war without Congressional or U.N. approval; -- And, finally, an intelligent, attractive, well-educated African American man who campaigned successfully and won the Presidency by presenting himself as a combination of John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., but is now finding the day-to-day details of being a "manager", so to speak, difficult beyond words because he didn't even complete one full term as a U.S. Senator, and didn't have national legislative experience even prior to that elected office. AND he gets left the job of rebuilding from the disastrous legacy left behind of the worst Presidency since Calvin Coolidge. A job not to be envied. We, as voters, sure have made some truly WONDERFUL choices in the last 57-58 years !

- bbyko

January 22, 2010 at 2:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Independently of the democratic credentials of the American polity -- don't ever forget that the founders created a Republic and not a Democracy -- Mr. Yard's argument would have some merit if the President's job was purely technocratic. And it isn't. So if those 300 million keep quiet on the President's job, the corporate money minority will find its way to the definition of the President's goals and agenda. As it has until now, with everyone else busy idolizing the new Messiah. Let's hope Obama learned his lesson and pursues from now on some sort of democratic agenda. That way, if he still loses, he'll lose with some sort of historical dignity, pursuing goals worth pursuing and not as a victim of his own cheap pragmatism. That means, among other things, that Geithner and Summers must go. Now. There's no better way to signal that real "change" is happening.

- Ideaot

January 22, 2010 at 6:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Blackton: In interests of full disclosure why don't you admit: 1. You will not be paying for any of the proposed healthcare costs as a public sector employee. You don't pay any net taxes. 2. You already enjoy better healthcare than most given the sweetheart deal most public sector union member have. 3. You are incredibly overpaid and a parasite. Ok you don't have to admit it - its obvious At the end of the day you get the last laugh -- as business owners like me pay for parasites like you.

- mr_rationale

January 22, 2010 at 12:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually Taiwan is interesting with a few caveats: - 5 min ave. Dr. visits - Smart cards that include medically private data - Taiwan Gov. is viewed as benevolent and competent -- part of the underlying Confuciancism religous belief - Limited R&D Taiwan eliminates insurance companies, pharma, and lawyers from healthcare equation --- good luck with that.

- mr_rationale

January 22, 2010 at 12:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

blackton -- You are being intentionally disingenuous. As you well know, the discussion isn't about "welfare" as a religious concept -- it's about Welfare as a funding mechanism and political concept. My personal religious belief is that health care is a moral responsibility -- as members of a decent and moral society we all have an equal right to receive care when needed, and an equal obligation to provide for the care of others as we can. That is one reason why I, personally, object to the Welfare model -- it requires people to prove they "qualify" for public health care and makes the financing of public health care a matter of enforced, and resented, charity -- rather than a right available to all.

- esmense

January 22, 2010 at 12:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ok esmense, I read you wrong. Although I am not quite sure how you can make Health care a right available to all without publicly financing it. Only scumbag Republicans can take a word like welfare: the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society. To be a bad thing. good lord rationale, have you read anything I wrote? I don't live in the United States, I haven't for 12 years, this ain't a secret anywhere here you schmuck. I have been doing, essentially, charity work for the past 12 years. I was offered a pretty high salary in Shanghai because of my editing and printing experience but I declined to teach in a rural classroom teaching High schoolers English, most international businesses require English, and I think I made a difference in the lives of many children, as opposed to helping a English/Chinese business magazine with their editing and layout. Sometimes I have regrets but not much since that would have not been the reason I went to China. After 7 years, getting married, and having two kids in China I was recruited to teach in the Oaxacan University system. I pay taxes to IMSS and am quite content with it. And being that my University specializes in Petroleum Engineering, and English is essential for the students, I am helping not just my students, but Mexico and the US as well. As to being overpaid ha ha hahahaha. For here, it is OK but as an English teacher I could easily make a lot more money in Japan or Europe, and being multi-lingual (Chinese, Spanish, and English) I could more easily write my ticket if I chose to go back to China. And at the end of the day, since I am not driven my money lust, I have lived on the island of Ponape (Pohnpei), went to the Uni. of Salzburg in Austria (alas I have forgotten my German), stayed for a bit in Brazil and 7 years in China and now 5 in Mexico. I have a beautiful wife and 3 great boys. If I am a parasite, then I am one of the luckiest ones alive. And I have helped countless young adults learn. Do you really imagine someone who has led such a boring and insignificant life as your own can truly insult me? Wait, regale of with stories of some business deal you made. I will tell you about the time a friend and I inadvertently hiked into a chinese naval base in Xiamen. This health care bill is not for me, I have the objectivity to see its value since I have experience living in the world and am not some little guy at some podunk little company in east bumfuck who thinks he is the shit since he has a little business.

- blackton

January 22, 2010 at 2:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As to Taiwan, my nephew is studying there, he raves about its ease of use. God forbid we learn anything from them.

- blackton

January 22, 2010 at 2:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

by the way, I am sorry, I don't mean to imply I think my life is any more meaningful or significant that anyone else. Just that I don't care to be called a parasite.

- blackton

January 22, 2010 at 2:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rationale, If nothing else, you are a dunce for your evident belief that output and wealth are the exclusive product of capital. It would make far more sense to take Marx's view that wealth is the exclusive product of labor. But you are both wrong. It is the product of both. Unless you happen to have the psychic ability to trace the impact of various costs through the economy in multiple circuits, there is no basis for the claim that business owners pay the costs of anything in particular. Indeed, there is a very strong case to be made that, since capital can rise or fall as it either receives or does not receive its demanded share of output, that it necessarily receives that share on average and all other costs are borne by workers whose numbers do not rise and fall with income. The mechanism for redistributing costs that you imagine are shouldered by you is called "price."

- roidubouloi

January 22, 2010 at 2:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Okay, full disclosure, roi, jhildner, blackie: I'm being somewhat disingenuous. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the comments in this and several other recent threads have been more robust and more multi-faceted and just plain MORE than in quite a while. At the same time, the prospect and implications of a federal government divided to a greater extent than was thought possible a few weeks ago suddenly exist. Coincidence? I love freedom of speech, especially when it's happening; for it, I have the ideological insecurity of divided government to thank. I regard divided government as one of my guilty pleasures. (In fact, I feel far more guilt about lovin' divided government than I do about doing many things that will get me a minimum of 20 Hail Marys and a mess o' Our Fathers, should I ever set foot again inside that little booth with the sliding window inside.)

- williamyard

January 22, 2010 at 2:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi, he is just trying to provoke, there is no reasoning with him. It reminds me of the life of Brian: And what have they (the Romans) ever given us in return?! XERXES: The aqueduct? REG: What? XERXES: The aqueduct. REG: Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah. COMMANDO #3: And the sanitation. LORETTA: Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like? REG: Yeah. All right. I'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done. MATTHIAS: And the roads. REG: Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads-- COMMANDO: Irrigation. XERXES: Medicine. COMMANDOS: Huh? Heh? Huh... COMMANDO #2: Education. COMMANDOS: Ohh... REG: Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough. COMMANDO #1: And the wine. COMMANDOS: Oh, yes. Yeah... FRANCIS: Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss, Reg, if the Romans left. Huh. COMMANDO: Public baths. LORETTA: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg. FRANCIS: Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this. COMMANDOS: Hehh, heh. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh. REG: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us? XERXES: Brought peace. REG: Oh. Peace? Shut up!

- blackton

January 22, 2010 at 2:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Blackton: So the parasite comment struck a chord? Irrelevant would be a better descriptor for you given that you haven't lived in the US for 12 years and don't play a role in US economy or society. Who cares about what ex pats think?

- mr_rationale

January 23, 2010 at 1:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi: Are you serious? Business owners don't incur costs? I never came close to implying the output and wealth are exclusive product of capital. Business owners create jobs, enable their employees (and families) to prosper and pay taxes, and provide products/services of value (if they didn''t they would be out of business) We risk our own capital (and sometime others) to accomplish this. It requires hard work, innovation, and ability to survive a couple of near death experiences. Entrepreneurs and business owners are the engine of the US economy.

- mr_rationale

January 23, 2010 at 1:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Blackton -- I'm not against public financing, but public financing must provide some benefit to everyone. If not, it will be resented and unworkable. I'm against the way the Senate plan provides subsidies to some by increasing the health care cost of others -- others who are already suffering from the lack of affordability of care and coverage. For most people, both premium cost and health care cost are expected to increase under this plan. Most especially, those small business owners, small business employees and the self-employed and the increasing number of contract workers, people who buy their own insurance and most need effective reform, will see increases in cost rather than increases in affordability. Rather than making health care more affordable for all, this plan makes it more affordable for some limited number people by making already too costly coverage and care even more costly and a larger financial burden for most others. That's both political malpractice and morally unacceptable. For example, a family of 4 with an annual income of $88,000, paying $20,000 in yearly premiums -- that is, between 20-25% of their gross income -- (a premium cost that is not at all unrealistic. My husband and I, small business owners, pay just under $20,000 for no-frills, high deductible insurance for just the two of us) can expect see their premium and health care cost increased (at least a 10% yearly inflation is predicted) under this plan, but won't be eligible for any subsidy. Plus, continuing premium inflation will inevitably move others into the "cadillac" range and subject their already too expensive coverage to the excise tax).

- esmense

January 23, 2010 at 10:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Stop patting yourself on the back, rationale. Labor is the engine of the US economy, as it is in every economy. Your workers enable you to prosper and pay taxes and put food on your table and provide products/services. Try operating your business with no employees and see how far you get. Of course business owners "pay costs," but those costs are generally passed on to consumers, who are workers for the most part. Hence, declaring that a particular cost is "borne by business owners" is ignorant of economic reality. It is one thing to say that a business pays a cost in the first instance. It is quite another that the economic cost ultimately comes from the pockets of owners. If, for example, a cost is removed from all business, the price for its output will be bid down and there is no reason to expect that, after adjustment, the owner pockets the difference. The owner does benefit in that, with lower price, demand should be higher. Due to market inefficiencies, there may indeed by some costs that stick to the pockets of employers. But you would have to be psychic, or have a super-computer the size of the NSA and an econometric model not yet in existence, to figure out what those are.

- roidubouloi

January 23, 2010 at 1:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Rationale is John Galt come to life. I promise you that whatever it is that he does, I can find a Chinese company that will do it for half the price and with better quality (China graduates nearly 10Xs the high quality engineers per year as the US does) At the time Ayn Rand wrote her garbage, some US steel company exec raved at her brilliance. I am sure that guy is long dead, along with, you know, the US steel industry. Rationale, yes, calling me a parasite really struck a chord, oh how I wept at it. Good lord you jackass, I teach University Students and I taught High School before this. Don't you realize the patience for utter bullshit you have to develop to do this job? In a way, it is one reason I don't have patience for simian trolls here. I have to put up with stupid shit from students, I expect some intelligence here. And we are all parasites, you are, I am, we all live off the earth, it doesn't need us. The thing is what we get out of life, you have your narrowminded little life that will bore your grandkids (if any woman is stupid enough to marry you and bare you kids). My kids are multi-lingual and prepared for a world dominated by globalism and cross cultural understanding. As to my being an expat, seems like we just elected a guy who spent his formative years as one, and it seems a hell of a lot more people care about what he says than they will ever care about you. I can guarantee you that in 50 years your company will be long gone. And I find it amazing how cowardly you are not to tell us all about your company here. It is free advertising, right. I don't hide behind any pretentious monikers, I put my name to what I write. Go ahead Mr. Rationale, lay it out. I did. Prove to me and the world that you are not a coward. I suggest you read some Aesop, hiding up on a rooftop, yelling at people, thinking you are being provocative. Why don't you just stay at vdare.com or any of those garbage websites. There are genuine Conservatives here I respect and admire (like Butchie b).

- blackton

January 23, 2010 at 2:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Blacton: Ok you pathetic parasite: First, given that I make more in charitable donatations per year than you make -- where I can donate to the poor unfortunate students who have to put up with your utter BS Blacton you are way out of your league, parasite::; Quick CV--- Undergrad: Top 5 computer engineering, UIUC, national merit, academic scholorship Grad: U of C Finance and Econ 4 years at McKinsey in IT strat practice, then Tech strategy position in Silicon Valley, then CEO/operator of tech firms usually VC/PE funded. Latest I helped fund CEO of three start-up companies, current one SaaS business model on helping manage envnironmental risk using latest rules engine technology and workflow. HEY IRELEVANT PARASITE: - I am smarter that you and would be happy to submit SAT, GMAT or IQ Test scores - I make more money than you -- my last exit was 7 figures and unfortuneatly I make 6 figure in annual tax payments - I do far more to help the poor through charitable donations and time spent at habitat for humanity than your tiny mind could comprehend - I have already made more of difference in Jan 2010 than some irrelevant parasite living in Mexico will ever make YOU ARE AN IRRELEVANT PARASITE HIDING IN MEXICO. BE SELF AWARE I will ignore wife and kids into it -- as you would really start to feel inadequate.

- mr_rationale

January 23, 2010 at 6:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

1) Individual acts of charity, while commendable, are not general proof of the validity of the donor's ideas. 2) Risk management sounds great, until you're the risk and the health insurance company is telling you it doesn't want you. 3) Any subscriber has the right to post on these pages, and I don't see why, if someone has good ideas (or indeed any ideas), their contribution should be measured against either their salary or their location. For example, I myself have a small salary but a very sharp mind.

- ironyroad

January 23, 2010 at 6:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, it all comes down to money with the likes of you. As I wrote above, I am motivated most by the simple teachings of Jesus Christ, "I was ill and you took care of me." And dude, what league are you talking about? I had no idea that life was some kind of league. Life, as Irony above points out, is not measured by money, but by our actions and our daily life. I have not, and will not, place money above all else. Nor would I refer to any fellow human traveler as a "parasite". I hate to say it, but anyone who refers to the millions of public sector workers as parasites is defacto an idiot. As to intellect, Hitler was a genius (of a sort) as have been a lot of truly reprehensible people. Bernie Madoff seems to be as well. Intellect alone is not the measure of worth, I have known simple people of grace and courage that far outstrip mine. I am sure you think you have a much bigger intellect than a typical firefighter (another public sector parasite in your eyes) yet they daily risk their lives for others. Many of my students (in the petroleum engineering field) are also much brighter than I. Does that mean I am not "worthy" to teach them? Maybe, but they seem to think so. My tenure is based at least in part on my effectiveness. You flail about seeking to provoke, but you don't really. You are a voice on the ether (as am I) the difference is you seem to be completely about your own ego. I am now starting to pity you. At first, this was just an amusing diversion, but you really do seem to think you are intrinsically better than others based on such ephemera. Or you have a massive insecurity issue. The difference between you and I is that I don't think for a moment I am in the least bit extraordinary or better than anyone, but have been blessed with the opportunity to have an extraordinary life (one that is available to far, far more Americans than they seem to realize, which is sad in its own way). Anyone (in America) can learn many languages, and travel, and many can pursue their dreams of making a difference, no matter how small, in the lives of others. I write what I write because I simply can not abide with the idea that the wealthiest nation on earth has millions of uninsured, so I lend my voice (and sometimes few dollars I have) to see that they get that. I have no idea what religion you are, but to me, the lesson of the cross has never been "believe in Jesus, get one out of hell free card" The lesson of the cross is that daily we must carry the cross for others. The suffering on the cross is an example of how we must suffer for others. Of course, I am a sinner, and I daily fail, but at least I know I also try daily. Believe you me, I could live far more comfortably but it would be a lie. To me, teaching in Asia, now in Mexico has been a calling. It is not hiding, obviously since one can not hide in front of a class. Certainly, it gives me joy, but it also is very difficult. I certainly find, for me, that is a far more spiritually rewarding life than the one I had in New Jersey. It is notable that you do something for others, if what you write it is obvious you can easily afford it, but have you suffered because of it? Does the phrase, give till it hurt have any meaning? One reason I left China is I got tired of seeing children who were intentionally crippled to make better beggars, and know there was nothing I could do for all of them, the scale is just too enormous. So yes, in one sense I have failed. At least here I volunteer and give some basic English lessons to Central Americans on the way to America. It is something, though I am sure you would be against that. Each of us, all over the world, all have the opportunity to attain call it grace, call it transcendence, call it endorphins, call it what you will whether by accident, circumstance, or design. It is a moment when the self becomes utterly irrelevant, you sense the interconnectedness, the unity of all things and you accept what is and will come, (yes, I know it could have been a delusion) it has only happened to me a few times in my life decades ago. So I truly do wish I could attain that irrelevance you ascribe to me in mocking terms, because that is precisely the whole point. This is not about me, nor is it about you. We are irrelevant. Health care is a right and obligation of all of us, no matter the cost. I disagree with Irony, (though number one and two are dead on) if your salary or location gives you insight into a specific matter than I see nothing wrong with illustrating the way it does.

- blackton

January 23, 2010 at 8:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Points taken. Lets move on

- mr_rationale

January 24, 2010 at 12:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

thank you, most sensible thing you have yet said. And I mean that sincerely, internet pissing matches are foolish, and I admit to being a fool for jumping in with both feet.

- blackton

January 24, 2010 at 6:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close