Update (this got long, so i created a new post):
Having read Mr. Kleins's comments and getting back to the homestead, I'm going to post my you tube video and then respond a bit to said commentry
First, a funny video about the concept of personal healthcare plans that aren't dependent on your employer:
This is a great video, and not just because it visalizes some great work fantasies (i particularly like the guy sitting on the copier) but because the text is right on as far as selling the idea of healthcare being portable. After a quick review of the bills in the house and senate right now, it seems that this provision is receiveing a bit of a head nod in the House "No reason to ever make a job or life decision again based on health care coverage" and looked over in the senate. I hope that Wyden (who sits on the finance committee) will insist that this kind of coverage be included and empahsized.
I say emphasized because these kinds of programs could be used to really sell this rform to the general public. One could make a pretty good argument that Obama already did that during the election but, as Mr. Klein says, Obama seems to have punted again, only to hope for a quick fumble recovery before time is up... (if were looking for an american footbal analogy, perhaps it would be better to call this an onside kick). His speech last night (which i havent yet listened to but have read a bit of) seemed to me to be a start. What really needs to happen is that people get energized about getting something done. I don't mean apealing to joe six pack, but i mean making it clear to the american people that massive reform will do EVERYONE a lot of good, the seniors and the insured as well. Charts like this might help.
Whats happening instead is that the american people are distracted by a lot of other things, they dont really like congress that much, and the republicans are doing their best to verbally lash Obama when they can. The fact that the mainstream media is going along for the show is unsurprising. Although Obama is starting to try and get things moving on the social movement front (which would hopefully put more pressure on the senators and congressmen that are dragging their nuckles), his administration and political arms have been pretty rough recently, even running ads against moderate democrats recently. I think it might be too late for the President to really be able to move this, and the most effective thing he could to is to tell Ried and Pelosi to just stand up, take responsibility for this thing publicly, and ram it through. As far as selling the people, the White House (and Congressional democrats!) should be touting the benefits of this program for everyone.
23 July 2009
Iran's Veepstakes
It would seem that in all the sound and fury about health care reform and just how many votes Sotomayor will get in the Senate we've forgotten about Iran. This is too bad because something both interesting and possibly quite scary is going on there right now. A fight has broken out between Ahmadinejad and Khameini over Ahmadinejad's choice for veep. Khameini nixed his choice, Esfandiar Rahim Mashai, but Ahmadinejad is sticking to his guns so far.
Now at first glance it wouldn't seem scary at all; just the opposite in fact. The clerics dislike Mashai because he's said that Iran is friends with everyone "even Israelis," he attended a ceremony in Turkey where women danced, and another in Iran where women played tambourines and read from the Koran. So at first glance it appears that Mashai is being punished for showing both a minimal level of sanity and decency. (Before concluding that this shows that maybe Ahmadinejad isn't as bad as we think it's worth pointing out that Mashai is his son-in-law).
What's scary about this is that Ahmadinejad feels confident enough to stand up to Khameini. The common opinion is that Ahmadinejad is the clerics' stooge, but figuring just who's really in charge in Tehran is like reading tea leaves. Another theory is that Ahmadinejad and the Revolutionary Guards have all but seized power and that the clerics are now more or less their puppets. This latest development gives a bit more credence to that theory, and at the very least shows that Ahmadinejad is no puppet. That's scary because in dealing with Iran we thought we could count on the fundamental venality of the Iranian regime. The Ayatollahs may talk a good Allah and Mahdi game, but when it comes down to it most of them want to continue fleecing their own people and enjoying their own privileges more than doing what they take to be Almighty's will on Earth. They're scumbags, but rational scumbags. And as long as they're rational nuclear deterrence would probably work (the scumbag element helps too, at least the purely self-interested are easy to predict). They may expect a nice time of it in heaven, but they've a good thing down here so no need to rush things. Ahmadinejad on the other hand has all the signs of a true believer. If the Ayatollahs are in charge a nuclear Iran is bad, but not terrifying (or at least not much more terrifying than anyone having nukes is). On the other hand if Ahmadinejad really is in charge or has a good bit of room to make his own plays, a nuclear armed Iran may be actually be as awful as the neo-con types make out.
Now at first glance it wouldn't seem scary at all; just the opposite in fact. The clerics dislike Mashai because he's said that Iran is friends with everyone "even Israelis," he attended a ceremony in Turkey where women danced, and another in Iran where women played tambourines and read from the Koran. So at first glance it appears that Mashai is being punished for showing both a minimal level of sanity and decency. (Before concluding that this shows that maybe Ahmadinejad isn't as bad as we think it's worth pointing out that Mashai is his son-in-law).
What's scary about this is that Ahmadinejad feels confident enough to stand up to Khameini. The common opinion is that Ahmadinejad is the clerics' stooge, but figuring just who's really in charge in Tehran is like reading tea leaves. Another theory is that Ahmadinejad and the Revolutionary Guards have all but seized power and that the clerics are now more or less their puppets. This latest development gives a bit more credence to that theory, and at the very least shows that Ahmadinejad is no puppet. That's scary because in dealing with Iran we thought we could count on the fundamental venality of the Iranian regime. The Ayatollahs may talk a good Allah and Mahdi game, but when it comes down to it most of them want to continue fleecing their own people and enjoying their own privileges more than doing what they take to be Almighty's will on Earth. They're scumbags, but rational scumbags. And as long as they're rational nuclear deterrence would probably work (the scumbag element helps too, at least the purely self-interested are easy to predict). They may expect a nice time of it in heaven, but they've a good thing down here so no need to rush things. Ahmadinejad on the other hand has all the signs of a true believer. If the Ayatollahs are in charge a nuclear Iran is bad, but not terrifying (or at least not much more terrifying than anyone having nukes is). On the other hand if Ahmadinejad really is in charge or has a good bit of room to make his own plays, a nuclear armed Iran may be actually be as awful as the neo-con types make out.
Framing the Debate
As i surf the internet on this rainy afternoon I keep noticing a trend in the reporting on Healthcare legislation in the US. Most of the journalists (particularly thos from the Washington Post) seem to be taking the position that Obama it fighting for his Presidency right now. Naturally republicans are taking this to heart and have begun making wild statements about "bringing him down" and making the healthcare debate "his waterloo". Of course the news media has jumped on this story an run with it, with even (fairly) liberal blogger Ben Smith penning a peice where he says, "Finally, we're starting to see him sweat"
Now nobody expected healthcare reform to go smoothly, but i think many are surprised that its going so roughly. It is begining to look like there won't be a finished bill by the august recess despite the White house's full on media offensive (and Obama's nationally televised news conference). This will, in turn, spur the media to spin stories about how Obama has lost power, how his agenda is in danger, and whatever can he do to get things back on track?
The fact of the matter is that this entire episode is somewhat self imposed by Obama, and I'm kind of at a loss of words to see why he has forced himeslf into this position. By emphasising the august deadline its almost as if he's trying to test out his legislative influence..and as we're seeing, its not just the republicans that are pushing back. Instead of waiting for september (which is when procedural rules will kick in making healthcare legislation much easier by forcing an end to debate and denying the right to filibuster) he's pushing the envelope here. Maybe he's got something else up his sleeve, but it seems to me that he could have just waited this one out for another month. As it is, he's going to take a pounding throughout august as the pundit class faults HIM for the senate's inaction (Pelosi has already scheduled a vote for the end of july on the house version of the bill and has repeatedly said they will vote).
Another aspect of this is the lack of personalization that the issue of healthcare has gotten so far in the media and debate about reform. We've heard a lot about numbers: the number of uninsured, the costs associated with reform. But we've heard less of the impact on normal americans in a more personal sense. An article by Matthew Yglesias got me thinking about this last night. The basic gist is that many of the people that would (or could) be up in arms about reform aren't, because they don't really see how thier lives would change with it. One statistic that stood out is that 90 percent of voters have healthcare (vs around 80% of the population as a whole) and thus aren't that worried about it.
What they don't realize (because the debate hasn't been framed that way yet) is that most of them only have insurance because of their job. Those that are losing their jobs come to realize very quickly that health care reform is needed (perhaps a silver lining to the 9.5% and rising unemployment rate?), but those that aren't don't nessescarily see the hidden costs of our system, because a lot of the costs are payed by the employer. Thus, they aren't really mobilized or upset about the current configuration and are content to let their congressmen wrestle with the issue.
We can beging to see a bit of an improvement in the framing of the debate in last nights speech by Obama. The theme was "What's in it for me?" and I think that is exactly the right tone to take. The american people really need to see that there is a way to have healthcare without being dependent on your employer, and that the healthcare that they probably do have is way too expensive and cumbersome. I'm not talking about publishing more horror stories about how Johnny lost his leg because he didn't have insurance, but more stories about how Frank has worked for 30 years at a job he hates because he needs health insurance for him and his family. I'm talking about addressing the issue of medicare head on, and letting the old folk know that although THEY may have government run healthcare, thier children and grandchildren don't.
I wonder why it has taken so long for the white house to come around to this tactic, and I hope that it's not too late in the game (again, time frame self imposed by Obama) for congress to be cajoled into action.
p.s. I wanted to post a you tube video here, but the server at my company doesn't allow the you tube website to load. So I'll post it later..
Now nobody expected healthcare reform to go smoothly, but i think many are surprised that its going so roughly. It is begining to look like there won't be a finished bill by the august recess despite the White house's full on media offensive (and Obama's nationally televised news conference). This will, in turn, spur the media to spin stories about how Obama has lost power, how his agenda is in danger, and whatever can he do to get things back on track?
The fact of the matter is that this entire episode is somewhat self imposed by Obama, and I'm kind of at a loss of words to see why he has forced himeslf into this position. By emphasising the august deadline its almost as if he's trying to test out his legislative influence..and as we're seeing, its not just the republicans that are pushing back. Instead of waiting for september (which is when procedural rules will kick in making healthcare legislation much easier by forcing an end to debate and denying the right to filibuster) he's pushing the envelope here. Maybe he's got something else up his sleeve, but it seems to me that he could have just waited this one out for another month. As it is, he's going to take a pounding throughout august as the pundit class faults HIM for the senate's inaction (Pelosi has already scheduled a vote for the end of july on the house version of the bill and has repeatedly said they will vote).
Another aspect of this is the lack of personalization that the issue of healthcare has gotten so far in the media and debate about reform. We've heard a lot about numbers: the number of uninsured, the costs associated with reform. But we've heard less of the impact on normal americans in a more personal sense. An article by Matthew Yglesias got me thinking about this last night. The basic gist is that many of the people that would (or could) be up in arms about reform aren't, because they don't really see how thier lives would change with it. One statistic that stood out is that 90 percent of voters have healthcare (vs around 80% of the population as a whole) and thus aren't that worried about it.
What they don't realize (because the debate hasn't been framed that way yet) is that most of them only have insurance because of their job. Those that are losing their jobs come to realize very quickly that health care reform is needed (perhaps a silver lining to the 9.5% and rising unemployment rate?), but those that aren't don't nessescarily see the hidden costs of our system, because a lot of the costs are payed by the employer. Thus, they aren't really mobilized or upset about the current configuration and are content to let their congressmen wrestle with the issue.
We can beging to see a bit of an improvement in the framing of the debate in last nights speech by Obama. The theme was "What's in it for me?" and I think that is exactly the right tone to take. The american people really need to see that there is a way to have healthcare without being dependent on your employer, and that the healthcare that they probably do have is way too expensive and cumbersome. I'm not talking about publishing more horror stories about how Johnny lost his leg because he didn't have insurance, but more stories about how Frank has worked for 30 years at a job he hates because he needs health insurance for him and his family. I'm talking about addressing the issue of medicare head on, and letting the old folk know that although THEY may have government run healthcare, thier children and grandchildren don't.
I wonder why it has taken so long for the white house to come around to this tactic, and I hope that it's not too late in the game (again, time frame self imposed by Obama) for congress to be cajoled into action.
p.s. I wanted to post a you tube video here, but the server at my company doesn't allow the you tube website to load. So I'll post it later..
When the going gets tough, hop on a flight to Switzerland.
One story has repeatedly popped up in the news over the last few months that just won't seem to die, so to speak. Every time I run across it, I fall into a paralysis of moral uncertainty. So I says to myself, I says, "Blog it."
Daniel James was a well-educated and well-heeled English rugby player who, in a rugby accident, became paralysed from the neck down. Anyone who's played rugby knows that injuries, even fairly serious ones, are par for the course. Where the story gets tricky is when James decided that a broken body wasn't worth living in, travelled to Switzerland, and received assistance in ending his own life.
I'll happily grant that there is no good argument against permitting euthanasia for the terminally ill. I'd even say that it is a right, meaning the onus of argument is on those who would rather ban it, because each is entitled to it a priori. My confusion starts when considering the question in cases short of terminal illness, leaving aside the observation that life is always a terminal condition.
One bulwark of market liberalism, The Economist, recently weighed in on the topic, declaring that euthanasia is fine in cases of terminal illness but inadmissible in other cases. Their reasoning is that the risk of the elderly being pressured into early graves by greedy associates (for insurance money or inheritance, if it isn't obvious) is too great. It's true that every individual is and ought to be the final arbiter on matters of his/her own existence, but the social consequences might require some qualifications on that position. For example, I once heard suicide described as a permanent solution to a temporary problem (must've been an after-school special). This doesn't apply in cases like Mr. James's, but it does in many other conceivable ones. Consider the depressed debtor who reckons that ending her life would be preferable to rebuilding her credit, which isn't so far fetched, or the politician whose scandals get to be too much, or the single parent who doesn't want to face another day of too much responsibility. In such cases, the perpavictim (victitrator?) basically bails himself out of responsibility. Piss on them slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, I'm cashin' in my chips. This choice leaves the rest of us holding the bag for somebody else's responsibilities, which isn't cool.
As to Mr. James, whose condition was permanent, I have a really hard time empathizing with his response to paralysis, but any outside perspective is arguably irrelevant anyway. I've known productive and contented people who happened to be wheelchair-bound. It would be foolish to claim that paralysed life bears some special and valuable properties - it sucks, it's a rough deal, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. Still, there are pursuits one can enjoy with just a brain and some sensory apparatus: music, books, movies, social contacts, etc. But some people seem not to care for them, and who has the right to force them. Some of my favourite last words come from George Eastman (of Eastman-Kodak fame), who wrote on his suicide note, "My work is done. Why wait?" I would find those words coming from Daniel James less credible, being such a young man, but the sentiment might still apply, and the big difference was that James lacked the ability to do it himself when nobody would be around to prevent him.
I don't have an easy answer for it, but I did want to get the question out there. Maybe now it will stop dogging me.
Daniel James was a well-educated and well-heeled English rugby player who, in a rugby accident, became paralysed from the neck down. Anyone who's played rugby knows that injuries, even fairly serious ones, are par for the course. Where the story gets tricky is when James decided that a broken body wasn't worth living in, travelled to Switzerland, and received assistance in ending his own life.
I'll happily grant that there is no good argument against permitting euthanasia for the terminally ill. I'd even say that it is a right, meaning the onus of argument is on those who would rather ban it, because each is entitled to it a priori. My confusion starts when considering the question in cases short of terminal illness, leaving aside the observation that life is always a terminal condition.
One bulwark of market liberalism, The Economist, recently weighed in on the topic, declaring that euthanasia is fine in cases of terminal illness but inadmissible in other cases. Their reasoning is that the risk of the elderly being pressured into early graves by greedy associates (for insurance money or inheritance, if it isn't obvious) is too great. It's true that every individual is and ought to be the final arbiter on matters of his/her own existence, but the social consequences might require some qualifications on that position. For example, I once heard suicide described as a permanent solution to a temporary problem (must've been an after-school special). This doesn't apply in cases like Mr. James's, but it does in many other conceivable ones. Consider the depressed debtor who reckons that ending her life would be preferable to rebuilding her credit, which isn't so far fetched, or the politician whose scandals get to be too much, or the single parent who doesn't want to face another day of too much responsibility. In such cases, the perpavictim (victitrator?) basically bails himself out of responsibility. Piss on them slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, I'm cashin' in my chips. This choice leaves the rest of us holding the bag for somebody else's responsibilities, which isn't cool.
As to Mr. James, whose condition was permanent, I have a really hard time empathizing with his response to paralysis, but any outside perspective is arguably irrelevant anyway. I've known productive and contented people who happened to be wheelchair-bound. It would be foolish to claim that paralysed life bears some special and valuable properties - it sucks, it's a rough deal, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. Still, there are pursuits one can enjoy with just a brain and some sensory apparatus: music, books, movies, social contacts, etc. But some people seem not to care for them, and who has the right to force them. Some of my favourite last words come from George Eastman (of Eastman-Kodak fame), who wrote on his suicide note, "My work is done. Why wait?" I would find those words coming from Daniel James less credible, being such a young man, but the sentiment might still apply, and the big difference was that James lacked the ability to do it himself when nobody would be around to prevent him.
I don't have an easy answer for it, but I did want to get the question out there. Maybe now it will stop dogging me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)