Sunday, March 28, 2010
Not a Hipster
This was posted on 1001 Rules for My Unborn Son a couple weeks ago. It's still awesome, though.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
The Necessity of a Public Option
With DailyKos and others taking a big swipe at Dennis Kucinich (and reportedly getting him to change his vote), and with everyone on the progressive left going on and on about our shared disappointment in the Health Care bill, I am left revisiting thoughts I had last summer. Specifically, why is a public option so important? Don't get me wrong, I see the merits of a public option (especially if there is an insurance mandate)--and quite honestly, I'm with Kucinich and others in preferring a model that would include single-payer, but is it a deal-breaker (a la Tina Fey) if the bill doesn't include one? It shouldn't be.
Single-payer would be the most equitable and efficient system, and I'm disappointed that the (supposedly) Democratic leaders in Congress and the White House never seriously considered trying for it. A public option almost certainly would be better than nothing in that, if we aren't going to supplant for-profit health care, we can at least give it a dose of competition.
Still, I believe that the same objectives we seek in a public option could be met by using a tool which Democrats have been running away from since the 90s: Regulation. With a strong system of regulation, such as price-controls and eligibility requirements, we could achieve just about everything promised with a public option. Mind you, this system still falls far short of where single-payer would get us, but I think that relative to the public option, its a wash. It may even be better. If we are to merely rely on a public option to work its invisible hand in the "marketplace" that is human health, who really knows where it would lead. Certainly in an economy like the current one, I can envision a time when certain forces might work to undermine the publicly provided option financially. Many or most people would not be inclined to stand up for the public option in this scenario, because they wouldn't be a part of it in the first place. Where would we be then without any other regulatory force that we all depend on, and thus have an interest in protecting?
Why then, isn't regulation the emphasis of progressives and the left? Because since the Clinton era, the left has been so eager to prove its pro-market credentials that we've forgotten what we stand for. So, yes, the Public Option could be a tool to shame private insurance into more reasonable territory. But, short of single-payer, our aims should be on identifying the structural problems with our current health care system and creating legislation that fixes those problems. I think many aspects of the current bill do this--or at least get us closer to this type of an environment, and it should be supported on that basis.
Single-payer would be the most equitable and efficient system, and I'm disappointed that the (supposedly) Democratic leaders in Congress and the White House never seriously considered trying for it. A public option almost certainly would be better than nothing in that, if we aren't going to supplant for-profit health care, we can at least give it a dose of competition.
Still, I believe that the same objectives we seek in a public option could be met by using a tool which Democrats have been running away from since the 90s: Regulation. With a strong system of regulation, such as price-controls and eligibility requirements, we could achieve just about everything promised with a public option. Mind you, this system still falls far short of where single-payer would get us, but I think that relative to the public option, its a wash. It may even be better. If we are to merely rely on a public option to work its invisible hand in the "marketplace" that is human health, who really knows where it would lead. Certainly in an economy like the current one, I can envision a time when certain forces might work to undermine the publicly provided option financially. Many or most people would not be inclined to stand up for the public option in this scenario, because they wouldn't be a part of it in the first place. Where would we be then without any other regulatory force that we all depend on, and thus have an interest in protecting?
Why then, isn't regulation the emphasis of progressives and the left? Because since the Clinton era, the left has been so eager to prove its pro-market credentials that we've forgotten what we stand for. So, yes, the Public Option could be a tool to shame private insurance into more reasonable territory. But, short of single-payer, our aims should be on identifying the structural problems with our current health care system and creating legislation that fixes those problems. I think many aspects of the current bill do this--or at least get us closer to this type of an environment, and it should be supported on that basis.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Them's fightin' words
Bring it on, Ayn Rand geeks!
"Even confined to a wheelchair, Franklin Roosevelt can defeat Ayn Rand."
"Even confined to a wheelchair, Franklin Roosevelt can defeat Ayn Rand."
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
TR and Health Care in the Early 20th Century
Basically I'm posting this because in spite of all the military involvement in the Philippines--and Cuba!--and Panama!--TR was still a pretty cool President. Besides, how cool is this?:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
