Anne Applebaum had a very good column this week on bad bipartisanship and lousy Medicare reform. It's worth reading, if only to illustrate a point: the whole idea that "bipartisan" means "good and reasonable" really ought to be questioned more often.
One of the whole reasons we have political parties is so that the majority can make a final decision on a contentious issue. Politicians who don't really have the stomach for that, however, often compromise in ways they shouldn't, just so they can say they did something.
Personally, I strongly support giving seniors a choice between private plans for Medicare. Letting people do this gives them more control over their care and, most importantly, gives them the option of firing incompetent bureaucrats if they don't like how they're treated. Giving consumers more choices this way is always a good thing. That's why, even though I'm not really opposed to national health insurance, I vehemently oppose the Single Payer idea.
It sounds like this new plan may just give us the worst of all worlds, too: a bewildering array of choices too narrowly defined and expensive to be useful to most beneficiaries.
(Via Jane Galt.)
It amazes me what passes for 'reform'. I belive the Rs mainly want to privatize the program but they know they have to do SOMEthing that looks like they are increasing benefits. The Democrats mainly want to expand the program, but they know they won't get a decent, simple expansion with Rs running the place, and they're terrified the Rs will manage to take their issue so they're going to go along for the ride even if the changes that are ultimately made are flawed (flawed AND expensive, what a great combo).
I'd love to see a nonpartisan commission of experts and economists get together and develop a 'road map' for Medicare reform. And when I say nonpartisan, I mean REALLY nonpartisan. Folks who are willing to check their agenda at the door. Start with the goal of maintaining current services in the face of rising numbers of beneficiaries. Do alternate scenarios where a drug benefit is added, where we means test for some or all of it, where we determine whether and how Medicare+Choice might actually work.
I'm planning on writing an article entitled "Why Conservatives and Libertarians should support a new national health care system." I'm already looking forward to the responses.
As I like to point out to my students, the essence of democracy is compromise, especially when talking about legislation. And the problem with compromise is that it means no one gets exactly what they want. And this is especially true if one is especially ideological--as one is likely to be disappointed a lot, because one with a strong philosophical position is unlikely to get "pure" results from democracy.
Indeed, the only way to get exactly what one wants is to be the absolute dictator, and even then, it ain't what it's cracked up to be...
So, Steven, we get the governmental program equivalents of aircraft with couplers and railroad cars with landing gear.
I trust your students appreciate the essence of democracy. And are preparing to help pay for it.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
There is a time for compromise, and a time to stop screwing around and take action. Question is, who decides its time for action?
Another question: Is there a TRUE nonpartisian organization left in the US? If we can find one, I'm all for it.