Good piece, and quite fair-minded:
‘Democrats have been complaining — loudly and repeatedly — that Republican opposition tactics on the Affordable Care Act are unprecedented. This is true, but not for the reasons that Democrats are telling themselves. No political party was ever foolhardy enough to pass such a big bill, with such sweeping consequences for so many people, without the support of a majority of their countrymen and at least a few members of the opposite party. Once they had done this unprecedented thing, the unprecedented reaction was predictable — and indeed predicted by myself and others’
Do you remember the town-hall meetings and heated debates? There was principled opposition from the get-go.
From The Health Care Summit, Paul Ryan lays out his case:
Arnold Kling graded the summit. In electing Obama for a second-term, and rejecting the ideas presented above, enough Americans elected to find out just what this bill is going to mean for their bottom-lines.
Richard Epstein, libertarian law & economics thinker, looks pretty prescient on what the law’s specific challenges are and how it wasn’t likely to succeed, certainly not by now, but perhaps never in some of its aims:
‘As I have noted before, there is only one type of reform that can make progress in meeting the three goals of a sensible health care system: cost reduction, quality improvements, and public access. That reform requires massive deregulation of the many market impediments that are already in place. Lower the costs, drop the excessive mandates, and thin out administrative costs, and people will flock back to the system voluntarily’
Sounds reasonable to this blog.
But politically feasible? Probably not.
The Obama team is huddled down in its bunker, still trying to make all of this work, and whatever happens, many of the President’s ideological bedfellows and political supporters really want it to work. Failing that, I’m counting on them to push solutions that line-up with their ideological goals.
Such is the story of politics, of course, but this blog has specifically objected to the forced redistribution, the aim to nationalize and perhaps socialize medicine, and the ambitious undertaking to fundamentally redefine the relationship all Americans have with their government.
Related On This Site: Avik Roy At Forbes: ‘Democrats’ New Argument: It’s A Good Thing That Obamacare Doubles Individual Health Insurance Premiums’…Megan McArdle At Bloomberg: ‘Health-Care Costs Are Driven By Technology, Not Presidents’
From The New England Journal Of Medicine Via CATO: ‘The Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate’From If-Then Knots: Health Care Is Not A Right…But Then Neither Is Property?… From The New Yorker: Atul Gawande On Health Care-”The Cost Conundrum”…Sally Pipes At Forbes: ‘A Plan That Leads Health Care To Nowhere’…