The Glade 4.0

To be broadcast live on the 25. Coverage details are not yet complete. CNN, MSNBC and Fox all will continue to update details as they emerge. The White House's statement is that the "whole thing" is supposed to be broadcast.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

So we'll get about 15 minutes of debate about it between ads and talking heads talking about how the debate is going on right now, but we're not allowed in yet due to some arcane parliamentary rule.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

It will be very interesting to see what comes of this event.

I think it is the right approach to try and get something actually hammered out. I'm just concerned that all sides are going to spend all their energy trying to score political points instead of trying to actually get some legislation done.

I think that's the point of it, actually. Obama knows the Republicans don't have a coherent or realistic alternative to offer (which is not to say that such alternatives don't exist), so he gets to call their bluff in primetime. It's not about reaching a deal or discussing anything with them; it's purely a political / perception game.

Well I think it's fair to say Republicans dont have a realistic plan but I dont know that there is a good plan either. I'm not seeing how Obamas will help at all, and it certainly has the capacity to make things worse.

Surely there are good ideas out there to implement, but I dont know how big an impact they would have.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

I don't understand why the R's haven't put out something and pushed it. Sure it opens them up to attack but it destroys a lot of the attacks levied so far.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Admittedly I'm biased, but I suspect it's because they know it's not possible to do without:

1. Providing more authority to government on a federal level
2. Back pedaling on a ton of their extreme rhetoric thus far
3. Alienating a lot of their support structure because of the box they have painted themselves into

Aye, along the lines of what Aizle said, I think the reality is that the Republicans realize that any market-based insurance reform will leave lots of people uncovered, and any government-based reform will grow government and require either taxes or deficits. Further, they also realize that most voters are wildly inconsistent about their preferences - they dislike "big government" and hate taxes, but they love receiving government services.

So, all that combined leaves the Republicans with no option but to either commit political suicide by pushing for cuts in services, go against their own rhetoric and propose increased government involvement and higher taxes/deficits, or just stand back and criticize the Dems plan without offering one of their own. They've obviously been going with the third option, and it's been working really well for them.

That's why I think Obama is inviting them to this televised forum - to make them either step up with a plan or look like obstructionists with no alternatives to offer.

There seems to be this stigma attached to the word "obstructionism". This stigma stems from the fact that passing legislation is always considered to be "progress". I think one might consider that the role of government need not be to provide services, allocation of capital resource through complicated tax structure, subsidies and the like and perhaps that "obstructionism" isn't quite the word it is generally made out to be.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Rafael pretty much hit the nail there. A competing plan is a not a requirement to criticize the proposals at hand. I don't need to have a different plan on who to make King of the US to oppose a proposal to name Obama King.

You may be right Rafael. However, I for one, would love to see both political parties grow a pair and just come out and say, "That idea sucks! Hell no I'm not voting for that".

It's all this bullshit with saying that they want health care reform too, but don't actually provide anything rational that's 90% of the problem IMHO.

The reason I would surmise that's the case, Aizle, is because saying you "Oppose Health Care Reform" becomes saying you hate Health and helping people. This is the typical polarized, false-dilemma mindset of most of the current voting population - and I mean that for both parties. Saying you oppose the PATRIOT Act would mean you loved terrorists, etc.

R's and D's have exploited this for decades.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

I dont know. I posited once that all legislation should have a mandatory sunset clause, say 15 years, requiring full parliamentary debate before being re-enacted. Figured it'd keep the politics so busy on the important stuff it'd cut down on pork (****, murders up for renewal again!), and also keep the current legislative framework relevant over time. Of course, it has insurmountable practical problems, but you get the idea- my point is, Im not a buyer of 'new laws is progress'.

Nonetheless, I view universal healthcare and education as the basis of a civilised society. Defense and policing as the basis of a stable, ordered society. After that... Im not sure what role collective government really has to play.

I accept you can get more effective, efficient societies without the things I view as marks of civilisation.

I guess my point is... at its root, universal healthcare doesn't really seem to be an economic argument. Economics seem to be a proxy for those who dont want to make the case that its moral, or immoral - it's not like we dont have the capacity to do it.

Has anyone tried making a purely utilitarian case for universal care based on a more productive population being the result? ;-p

Hence why I said both parties. It IS a false dilema, unfortunately forced upon our politicians by the great unwashed masses that vote for them. Or alternately their complete inability to form coherant messages and get the media or audiences to be able to absorb them.

I just wish that our politicians would grow a pair and come out and say it. It's one of the reasons why I really like Jesse Ventura as our governor. He would come out and say to the face of the single mom, no I'm not going to give you state money to go to college because you made a poor choice for a sex partner.

Yes, and it succeeds and fails in the same points as the argument that universal education results in a more productive population.

Entirely seriously - do you have a link? Im quite surprised.. I kind of gut-felt that productivity overall might even go down due to the 'safety net' feeling reducing the immediacy of the need to work. I promise if you supply one I'll even try to read it ;-p

edit

I don't have a link to any studies (though I'm sure they exist), but I have seen it noted on moderate economics blogs that tying health insurance coverage to employment reduces labor mobility and entrepreneurship, since people are less likely to risk losing coverage to switch jobs or start their own business. A consequence of that could very well be that people who would be more productive in a different job setting stay put. Universal healthcare would avoid this problem, thus increasing productivity. In addition, if universal healthcare leads to better overall health of the population (debatable, of course), then there would be less productivity lost to illness.

On the other hand, there could be the drag effect you're talking about from any safety net program. There could also be some loss of productivity due to people missing work to go to doctor appointments and get procedures that they otherwise couldn't afford. I'm guessing that the net result will still be positive gains to productivity, though.

The idea that there are no conservative alternatives is patently absurd, frankly.

The issue is that there are multiple alternatives, because Republicans aren't in lockstep like much of the Democratic Party.



Well-poisoning, bare assertion fallacy.

Multiple conservative or Republican groups have come forward with alternatives and been cast aside by the majority party. Furthermore, their proposals have been entirely "rational," assuming you mean "rational" to mean equally thought-out and no more destructive to the economy and individual liberty than the majority party's proposal.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I agree that there are multiple conservative alternatives out there, but I don't see them coming from Congressional Republicans, who are the ones with the power to actually offer an alternative legislative agenda.



Personally, I'd say that for a plan to be taken as a serious alternative, it should plausibly address the issues (i.e. improve access and/or reduce costs), explain how it will be paid for, and be within the realm of political reality. So, using that measure, I don't see France-style national healthcare as a genuine alternative from the left, and I don't see scrapping Medicare and going to a purely private system as a genuine alternative from the right. Similarly, I don't consider plans that don't really accomplish anything on the issues, or that don't realistically address the cost as genuine either, and from what I've seen, that's mostly what the Congressional Republicans have offered.

False.

Summary of GOP plan.
http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Summ ... -04-09.pdf

Text of plan.
http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Medi ... 3962_9.pdf



Such a plan does not exist and cannot exist as a systematic overhaul, given the final caveat. This includes the current plan, as it fails point 2 of your listed 3 criteria.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Well a few things there. One is, people are very consistent; they want both lower taxes and more services. That's kinda tongue in cheek but true. I would venture to say though, that Obama better realize that in this economy he better not dick around too much with taxes and spending. So if he thinks he's getting the Republicans where he wants them I'm not so sure that's true. No matter what, there is always a tax threshold people hit and start to get angry, we've already seen it manifesting in elections.

All repubs have to say is lets focus on jobs right now instead of this massive entitlement increase that will mostly cover 22 year olds, illegal immigrants, rich people etc... Then offer some simple, but minor "fixes" like allowing more competition in health insurance companies by removing restrictions.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

You originally asked if anyone has made an argument for universal health care on upon productivity of the work force, to which people have made that argument. Specific people... well Monte would be one, but its not an unused argument from supporters of universal health care in the political arena. If you want specific politicians, I'm sure I could find some speeches with looking, but no names come directly to the forefront, only the recollection I have read them. If you are looking for studies that link health to productivity, there is no shortage of those, to the point there are journals, publications and conferences dedicated to managing worker health and productivity. Here is an article regarding health in the workforce and managing productivity.

However, as I said in my response, the argument succeeds and fails in the same way that using similiar studies linked to education and productivity fail when expanded to the larger population. Politicians use studies and reports such as the above to make cases that don't extrapolate well.


I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that isn't some cheap shot at me.

Thank you, it wasn't. But seriously, where are those links?

There are two in my response to Sui, along with caveats about the specifics of the response. Were you looking for some additional information?