I keep getting requests to help OFA promote health reform, and I generally like President Obama's principles. But I do have some concern that even if Congress ultimately passes a health reform bill it will bungle the matter.
One of the reasons for my concern is that the health care debate has degenerated into partisan warfare and special interest tug of war. This is politics as usual, not change we can believe in. Even if the democrats prevail on the strength of their thin majority I fear we will not get good legislation unless we can have a bipartisn bill. I realize that the republicans are as much if not more to blame for the partisanship. But where it makes sense, why not go the extra mile for bipartisanship?
My concern crystalizes over a specific example when I read here (http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/10/news/economy/healthcare_money_wasters/index.html) that perhaps half of our health care money in the U.S. is wasted and much of that is due to excessive testing practiced for two reasons: 1) doctors are paid directly or indirectly for the tests, or 2) excessive testing due to defensive medicince to avoid malpractice suits.
One of the areas where I tend to agree with the Republicans is their desire to rein in excessive litigation in the United States. I often fear that because so many of the democratic congressmen (and the president himself) are lawyers, they don't realize the extent to which the fear of lawsuits is distorting business decisions. I have worked in small business and in the corporate sector so I know this for a fact.
I have also been a medical patient, unfortunately. I cannot tell for myself except in hindsight which tests have been reasonable and prudent and which were for the doctor's CYA. I just know there have been a lot of tests.
I do want the doctors to have SOME concern over the consequences of malpractice. But I don't want undue fear of litigation rather than medical reasons to be the motivator for expensive tests.
I think that putting malpractice reform in play is the right thing to do in the cause of affordable medicine, and that doing this would increase the opportunity for a bipartisan bill that might make more sense in the end than a partisan one.
I am concerned that the Democratic Party is losing its grip and making missteps on national strategy and governance as it seeks partisan advantage in the torture debate.
Since the days of Sun-Tzu we have known that intelligence is one of the most critical government functions in times of war and in preserving peace. From the "Art of War":
"What enables an intelligent government and a wise military leadership to overcome others and achieve extraordinary accomplishments is foreknowledge...It must be obtained from people who know the condition of the enemy...Therefore...no one is given rewards as rich as those given to spies, and no matter is more secret than espionage."
At the same time, intelligence agencies can become very powerful, i.e. a secret and sinister government. This has been evident in Russia and the former Soviet Union, for example. In the United States we have tried to control the power of intelligence agencies by dividing functions between multiple agencies, limiting their missions. This has been difficult, necessary, but not sufficient. Again from the "Art of War":
"One cannot use spies without sagacity and knowledge, one cannot use spies without humanity and justice..."
Both the Democrat and Republican party leadership have recklessly inflamed the interrogation policy issues in search of partisan advantage. That the Democratic Party seems to have abandoned all sagacity and knowledge on this matter is well-described by the Washington Post in Michael Gerson's "The Democrats Assault on the CIA."
President Obama has tried to find balance on this issue, trying to reassure the CIA and pulling back from the brink of a disastrous almost-decision to release yet more inflammatory photographs of interrogations. I believe that torture is reprehensible. But in my opinion, that releasing those photographs should have even been considered raises grave judgemental questions, some of the first I've had concerning an otherwise admirable leader. That major elements of the Democratic party should push the President in that direction is just one more thing that confirms my reasons to remain an independent voter!
Again from the "Art of War":
"Only a brilliant leader who can use the highly intelligent for espionage is sure of great success."
In short, we have enemies and cannot ignore pragmatic issues of realpolitik. We require strong intelligence agencies, but must keep them on a leash. The right way to do that is by making strong public policy statements and quietly cleaning house, not by conducting witch hunts and humiliating entire agencies. I urge Democrats and Republicans alike to take a step back from this mess, which we must trust the President to clean up.
I was dismayed by the March 15 front page article in the NY Times: "Admistration open to taxing health benefits"
Remember during the campaign Obama actually aired commercials criticizing McCain for propsing this idea.
I feel betrayed. Where is the bipartisanship? All I hear is them asking me for money again.
I still have some hope that the administration will follow moderate policies that will help America and help me, but my hope is fading.
As an independent voter who was/is a strong Obama supporter I'm watching the stimulus legislation negotiations for signs that the new administration will deliver on the promise of change to the partisan political process. So far I'm encouraged that Obama and the Republican leadership are at least talking and have some hope that the result will be better, more balanced legislation.
Just by way of background, in 2000 President Bush had also run partly on the promise of a bipartisan approach. Apparently he was not sincere because there was almost nothing bipartisan about his 8 years except briefly after the 2001 attacks when the Democrats came to him.
I believe that Obama is sincere about bipartisanship but I'm still afraid that the strong partisan currents will sweep his good intentions away. I'm enough of a realist to understand that partisanship will remain, but enough of an idealist to hope that our elected representatives may sometimes choose in favor of the greater good of the country rather than partisan advantage and that balanced, moderate legislation may sometimes result.
In the latest report on the stimulus neogtations I see both good and bad signs http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/24/AR2009012400661.html.
Bad:
- The Republicans say they were completely shut out of the stimulus drafting process
- The legislation bears some Congressional Chrismas tree imprints; such as money for the National Endowment for the Arts. (I don't object to funding the arts but don't understand why that should be in the jobs bill. Bills should be kept clean and specific to their purpose, not used as a way to sneak in funding for other things in a non-transparent manner)
- The bill will be very expensive and I don't understand how our country will ever pay off all its debts and if/when foreigners stop buying our Treasury bills we'll be ruined
Good:
-Obama met with the Republican leadership, listened to their input, and hopefully gave them reason to be constructive and bipartisan in their turn
- One of the ideas that Obama and the Democrats will reportedly consider is abatement of the effect of the AMT tax. (This tax is an abomination because it continually increases without Congressional transparency and accountability. And its abatement is arguably stimulative to the economy so it is not another Christmas tree ornament.)
