Too bad we didn’t just have a national election where voters got to decide between health care reform or health care status quo. That would have really helped clear things up …
Of course, McCain didn’t endorse the literal status quo, but this is only a misdemeanor in comparison to the claims about a mandate. Let’s review why this is not the correct interpretation of the 2008 election. Here’s Andy and me:
But do we really know what people want just because they support one candidate over another? We cannot assume that people voted for Obama based on detailed knowledge of his policy positions…Instead people often choose a preferred candidate and then rationalize issue positions to fit this preference. So we cannot interpret an election outcome as a wholesale endorsement of the winner’s policy proposals (or as a wholesale rejection of the loser’s).
It’s also worth noting that anyone who did choose Obama because they wanted “health care reform” would be entitled to oppose the specifics that have emerged from Obama, the House, or the Senate.
{ 6 comments }
It should also be noted that anyone who voted for Obama might have done so for matters completely unrelated to healthcare: namely his perceived anti-war position. So much for perception matching reality. One bright spot, though, is that more people are realizing that top-level candidates in America are chosen for the people, not by the people. That is, moneyed elites and special interests decide in advance who’ll run America. They always have. One could say that such corruption is a natural result of any large, centralized system. And of course the mainstream media is owned by those very same elites and special interests, so the population is kept in a state of perpetual fog. The Faux News position that town hall meeting protesters support the status quo is no more honest than the “Progressive” administration’s assertion that people necessarily want powerful centralized government to distribute the nation’s productivity.
Consider the right-wing neocon position, as represented by Faux News (the ones who’d rather see national productivity channeled directly into aggressive foreign interventionism than healthcare or true free markets): They’ll tell you repeatedly that universal healthcare in Europe doesn’t work. However, I’m European and I know from experience that it does work! In fact, it’s glaringly obvious!! On the other hand, the left-wing neocons (the ones represented by the current administration, who’d love to see Americans hooked on big government programs and a central banking model by which the world’s elite banksters can profit endlessly; perpetual war not excluded) are quick to acknowledge the success of European systems, but they don’t mention that European countries have relatively tiny populations compared to America’s, thereby making those systems far easier to manage and less corruption-prone.
Aside from Russia, Europe’s most populated country is Germany (80-million people), and its heathcare systems are run separately by each of its 13-individual states. In other words, there is NO NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM in Germany, yet there is universal healthcare! Not surprisingly Germany has some of Europe’s best healthcare: no significant waiting lines, plenty of choices and opportunities to pay for special services, when necessary, with cash at reasonable prices. No worries about pre-existing conditions or going bankrupt due to American-style, fraudulently inflated hospital bills. The German system is basically what an American healthcare system could look like if done at the state level—that is, each of America’s 50 states could have its own system. Many states already have a working framework for it. But why aren’t people demanding a more complete model from their state legislators?
I’d say it’s due to the agenda of elites and special interests who dominate the discussion, and the constrained dialogue they promote via their “national” media (which they own and control). So where can America go from here? Is it doomed to a choice of either, the arguably horrible status quo system, or a nationalized system that comes pre-packaged with oligarchy?
I think it was Converse who said that the public generally doesn’t actually have opinions.
Libertaer, have you heard of Robin Hanson‘s proposal to munincipalize medicine?
What about a plebiscite or referendum on health care reform?
Don’t you think it would be good?
I really want to see your opinion.
Regards,
Manoel
Manoel: The question is, a referendum on what? A public plan? Various reforms to private insurance plans? Strategies for cost containment? It’s not an easy issue to put to an up or down vote.
TGGP, yes I’m familiar with the Finnish municipal system. I have lived in Finland. The municipal system makes good sense. Here’s my take, bad and good:
The health system is well organized, but the county’s overall economic condition is far from stellar, so ER facilities are often understaffed. It’s kind of scary actually. To compound problems, there’s lots of alcoholism and related assaults happening there, so ER’s are especially busy on weekends. I have some examples of people who’ve had to wait a long time, but I’ll spare you the details for now!
This is probably not due to the health system per se, but instead the high amount of redistribution and central planning which comprises the general economy–roughly the highest in Europe. This causes economic drag and keeps public services running at a minimally acceptably level–the secret to Nordic effiency!
Fortunately, there’s also a private medical sector (although it doesn’t necessarily help you in an ER situation), so if you don’t feel like waiting a few months for a “free” public specialist, you can pay cash for a private one and get seen right away–about 120€ for a neurologist visit. You can even get supplementary insurance for private care–about 600€/yr.
In any case, all standard hospital costs are covered by the municipal system, so there’s no chance of the hospitals trying to bankrupt you with inflated charges–something that Washington created, to harm Americans, on behalf of the hospital corporation lobby.
So yeah, a state/municpial hybrid system would make sense for America, but keep Washington out of it completely! I wouldn’t trust Washington to implement or fund any aspect of my healthcare anymore than I’d trust the European Union to do it. Large structures are inherently corrupt.
“..we cannot interpret an election outcome as a wholesale endorsement of the winner’s policy positions (or a wholesale rejection of the loser’s)”
This is true enough for contemporary American elections, but not always true of elections in other systems, times, and places (say e.g. postwar Britain into the 70s, where party manifestos were taken more seriously and run on more closely than the parties’ platforms in the US).
Also, I think it is probably legitimate to interpret Obama’s election as a rejection of the status quo in a general sense, and to that extent one can read it as a mandate, not for specific proposals, but for departures from some of the Bush policies. This doesn’t bear specifically on health care but is a more general point.
Comments on this entry are closed.