BETTER TO HAVE TRIED AND FAILED, THAN TO HAVE TRIANGULATED ON UNIVERSAL CARE
One of AS's readers wrote in, on behalf of all of us, a number of weeks ago to say that, because AS was so ridiculously against Hillary, that he'd be more inclined to vote for her, out of spite.
Despite very little real policy-level work on his blog on the topic of healthcare, AS finds persuasion in a piece that prefers to cast the whole matter as a he-said, she-said bickering.
Of course, that would be music to AS's ears. It's not that he likes Obama. It's just that he thinks he's "doable" or (undoable), from this partisan perspective, maybe. Clinton, on the other hand, changes the terms of the debate (as does Edwards). It's no wonder they hate her.
HOOK, LINE, AND SINKER
Obama talks about individual responsibility, sometimes, and about choice, and that apparently gives AS enough of a green light - an ideological hard-on - to ignore what a more studied view would consider about how 'liberal' or 'effective' Barack's stated policy views might be.
In this case, Obama is talking about the voluntarily uninsured (Obama has those too poor in mind, but AS seems most thrilled that such language would also cover those too rich or and, maybe, Texas slackers).
He seems to ignore that Obama's plan looks like it offers lots of additional subsidies, which are not a recipe, per se, for reigning in costs.
Why does AS ignore that the GOP are going to attack Barack's notion of a National Health Exchange, as another giant, liberal bureaucracy that is going to be foisted on America and freedom loving Americans? Of course, it isn't, but that's not going to matter, because no one "knows" Obama and he will be ripe to be typecast ... (What would matter is whether such a construct could deliver the goods. One wonders what precedent the designers had in mind - what incentive do companies have to participate? How long would it take to implement and wouldn't the next Executive round of politics be ready to attack it as a "failure", just as it got up and running, sometime late into the first term of a new and untested President?)
How does the Federal Government guarantee eligibility? That seems to me like a legal battle that might take most of Obama's first term. (I could be gravely mistaken, but it's not like I've seen this vetted thoroughly on AS's blog, either).
Goolsbee, in my opinion, goes the wrong direction on affordable health care. If he were "progressive" enough, he would be pushing catastrophic coverage toward the private re-insurance markets, while programs like medicare were expanded to take over the day-to-day healthcare needs. As it is, he seems to have it the other way around ...
WRONG DIRECTION, LONGER TERM
In fact, the more you look at it, Obama's health plan doesn't push the long-term struggle in the right direction. It looks prone to not deliver much, in terms of visible changes or political milestones, and therefore, it looks like it could all be unwound during the next Republican administration. For instance, his National Plan is NOT offered to anyone who is trapped by the Nanny Corporation.
END THE NANNY CORPORATION
People should be able to get the heck out of their Nanny Corporation Plan, if they want. Why does that choice not matter foremost to AS, rather than the "persuasive" choice offered to the voluntarily uninsured?
Of course, that would be music to AS's ears. It's not that he likes Obama. It's just that he thinks he's "doable" or (undoable), from this partisan perspective, maybe. Clinton, on the other hand, changes the terms of the debate (as does Edwards). It's no wonder they hate her.
