If you expected some sort of agreement to come from yesterday’s health care summit than today you are disappointed. In terms of saving or killing the current health care reform bills yesterday was probably a failure. Both sides are as deeply, if not more deeply, entrenched in their views. As health policy consultant Linda Bergthold wrote for The Huffington Post, “Compromise on Health Care? Fuggedaboutit.”
I don’t think that anybody had any real expectation of compromise. But our representative form of government is best served in the long term by open, vigorous debate. That we had. And as Jim Harper at Cato wrote: “A better informed public will make better decisions about health care legislation, about individual representatives, and about the proper role of government.”
Yesterday’s debate articulated the major political philosophical difference dividing our nation more clearly than anything since the New Deal. That was a major accomplishment. The two parties debated health care reform but in doing so they debated an issue of far greater important to our nation’s future than simply the cost of health care and who pays. I define this philosophical difference as:
Free market individualists: We need to better define a free market individualist America for the 21st century. This definition needs to evolve to recognize the sensibilities modern Americans have to our fellow human beings. It is an appreciation of humanity that the Founders could not have understood; evidence slavery, later racism, and various religious and cultural exclusions. My belief is that the best way to aide a fellow human being is to enable, not to give. Feed a man a fish… Now we have to convince Americans that this is true.
Liberal progressives need to explain how they can bring about a more comprehensive government role that is distinguished from Socialism and without inhibiting (dare I say “enhancing”) the fundamental American individualism that disdains government in the form of the nanny state.
The lines are clearly drawn, but this is not a battle. Battles won’t work. Calls to battle activate those that are already part of a movement or a belief. They do not cause people to change their philosophical points of view. For the long term that is what each of the opposing sides needs to do – win opponents over to their point of view.
To change an opponent’s philosophical point of view means to use persuasion. When I write, “Persuasion,” I am not referring to the high pressure techniques of a ruthless salesperson. I am calling on the art of finding some form of common ground, clearly defining differences, thoroughly and completely understanding the opposing point(s) of view (empathy), and utilizing education and compromise to build agreement.
The health care debate is about far more than health care; it is about the entire political and economic relationship between the government and We the People. Yesterday’s summit defined that philosophical difference clearly. Now both sides have a lot of work to do for the future or our nation.
{ 12 comments }
I wish you had not dragged out that tired old saying about “Feed a man a fish, . . . teach a man to fish.”
Conservatives who use it never get around to explaining their plan for “teaching” anyone to do anything that will improve his economic situation. They simply use the saying to express their belief that giving people something is bad and they stop there.
The last time our country had a truly effective program for bringing educational opportunity to a large number of Americans was the post WWII GI Bill. The scholarships provided to a huge number of veterans enabled many to get an education they could never otherwise have afforded and reach income levels they could never otherwise have reached, making them more productive members of our society in every respect.
I’m sorry to say that during the previous Congress, in 2008, Republicans like McCain opposed expansion of such educational benefits for veterans that Democrats like Jim Webb proposed – they claimed it was unaffordable. McCain supported spending almost a trillion on the bank bailout, but opposed higher education spending for GI’s. So much for “teach a man to fish.”
Yesterday’s summit consisted mostly of partisan talking points, but Mr. S. is correct in saying it also highlighted some real philosophical differences.
Republican Eric Cantor made it clear in responding to Obama’s question about covering the uninsured that his party believes the federal government simply can’t afford to do it, so that should not be one of the goals of the legislation.
Obama had invited Republicans to come to the table to discuss their ideas for achieving the goals of the bills Democrats have drafted, one of which is covering the uninsured. Cantor’s response was that Republicans have no ideas for doing this because it is simply not something government is able to do.
In response to Senator Alexander’s remarks, Obama pointed out that the bills contained some ideas that Republicans have embraced in the past. An example is a tax on so-called “cadillac” health insurance plans, which was proposed by the McCain campaign in 2008. Obama invited Alexander and the other participants to mention not only those provisions of the bills they didn’t like but also those they did. I did not hear Alexander or any other Republican do this. Did you?
The normal process of legislative negotiation and compromise is that the party that has proposed a bill asks members of the other party, “What changes can we make to this bill that would get you to vote for it?” That question has been asked in comments on this blog several times, but never answered.
I do not know of any Republican member of either house of Congress who has told Democrats at any point during the past year, “If you make the following changes to the bill, I will vote for it.” Can anyone name such a Republican?
“The normal process of legislative negotiation and compromise is that the party that has proposed a bill asks members of the other party, “What changes can we make to this bill that would get you to vote for it?” ”
Was I asleep, or could you please name the Democrat who asked this question at any point during the past year? Or was the question just framed differently such as “What will it take to get you to vote for it?” Asking “what will it take” and “what changes can we make” are not the same thing. “What will it take” usually takes the form of a bribe as we saw with Nebraska and Louisiana.
Yes, his name is Senator Max Baucus. Baucus spent months last year negotiating a bill with Republican members of his committee, including Grassley and Enzi. Grassley mentioned those negotiations when he spoke during the summit yesterday. Other Republicans like to pretend those talks never happened, because only by pretending that can they claim there has been no effort to reach a bipartisan compromise.
I would like to add that it’s ridiculous to use the word “bribe” in this context.
The Senate was created by the Founders to give lower population states (like Nebraska) more clout in Congress. Giving each state, regardless of population, an equal number of votes in the Senate is meant to insure that the smaller states can block legislation they don’t like unless there is something in it for them. Pretending that this tactic is something new, or something Republicans have not used many times in the past to benefit their states, is very, very dishonest.
Why did Senator Shelby recently put a hold on 70 of Obama’s nominees, for example? Because he wanted a guarantee that certain defense expenditures would be made in his state of Alabama. Why are conservatives not yelling at him about this? Let’s not be hypocrites, shall we?
I think we all understand the real reasons Republicans oppose Obama’s plan.
They don’t want a health care bill to pass not because they think reform won’t work but because they think it might work.
The last thing Republicans want is the creation of another entitlement program that eats up a huge amount of tax revenue and is also popular with voters, like Social Security and Medicare. The more programs like that are created, the harder it becomes for them to talk about smaller government and lower taxes.
Bush was able to get major tax cuts passed without cutting spending on popular programs because America was still able to borrow enough money at low rates of interest to make up the difference and keep spending. But at some point the ability to borrow more and more at low rates comes to an end. What then?
If there is no room left to cut taxes because tax cuts mean cuts in popular programs, what do the Republicans have left to talk about? That is what they’re afraid of.
One of the Republicans singled out for praise by the media yesterday due to his expertise on this issue is Rep. Paul Ryan.
Ryan is the ranking member on the House Budget Committee and has proposed his own comprehensive reform plan. As far as I know he is the only Republican who has done this.
His plan proposes to control the cost of Medicare by eliminating the program for everyone now under 55. Instead, when those now under 55 reach 65 each person will get an annual voucher that can be used to buy private health insurance. If the voucher is enough to buy all the coverage a person needs, he is okay. If it is not enough, he is not. I don’t think anyone mentioned this at the summit.
I’ve read about Ryan also. There is an interview of him on this subject on the Washington Post site by Ezra Klein who is one of the Post reporters covering the story in detail. This is an interesting blog apart from a few ignorant posts by some dittohead who has twenty different screen names and just talks trash about Obama with nothing else to say.
Cypress5
Wow…another MMfA shithead to add to the hairdresser list…No new copy/paste today?
What there to argue with fools about?
We gave up long ago…Now it’s just make fun o’ yous and your 20 screen names…
We know you to be one dummy, ’cause there can’t be 20 different dim bulbs that reads this stupid blog…But maybe…
I’ve actually not seen the Republicans to be interested in smaller government. They just target welfare to big business, defense, and (like Deams) themselves. And the Bush administration grew entitlement spending with the Medicare drug benefit.
True
DimBulbHenri/DimmerBulb Hesh/Dimmist of all Bulbs Paul/Collinswoodie and all other Econ101 Illiterate hairdressers
Was you idiots watchin’ the same healthcare summit we here in Detroit was watchin yesterday? Cause what we saw, was a clueless emptysuit with bug ears and a bigger f**kin’ ego make a fool o’ his self……
This dumbass don’t know when to quit…Nobody wants what this fool be sellin’… Simple as that…
This healthcare meetin, put on by the ONE, was nothin’ but a show where the Bamster would look smart and he thinkin’ he be makin’ the Repubs look stupid…
Well it did NOT turn out the way you hairdressers would have liked… The Repubs looked like the adults they was and MrO looked like a petchulant little crybaby in way over his fat head…
I keeps tellin you fools, no workin’ American wit any sense, gonna go for this crapola Obamba be peddelin’…
This fool is a loser and come Nov, his 79 seat majority will be gone baby, gone…
Makin’ him mo’ impotant (dickless) then he be now…Kinda like you fools…Not an ounce o’ testerone among you all…