I'm a civil libertarian with free market pragmatism built in, but I'm no card carrying libertarian, Mike.
Will, a lot of things scare me a lot more than a fairly boilerplate healthcare mandate. Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland...all countries with a mandate of some sort. Singapore has mandated savings. Actually Social Security is essentially mandated savings. We have plenty of precedence for mandates. I don't like the corporatism but I don't see it as unconstitutional.
Dennis I said "if". I dont't think you're delusional. I'm just not sure you can actually believe that the ACA is an uncompromising ideological bill. And what Aaron said. I didn't mean to come across as pissy as I did.
How about we set up a system of exchanges and give people vouchers based on their income to help pay for private insurance. We could also expand Medicaid for the poorest Americans. This would lead to a three-tiered system instead of a two-tiered system (and maybe four-tiered if you count Medicare).
I think that you missing the fact that your own ideas or thoughts are shaded by ideology. You think that the government and more specifically, the federal government, should have some control in the area. Ok, fine. But that is an ideological argument. It isn't somehow free and pure of some ideological thought. What I am reading in this post is that people like you and Freddie are mad that Republicans didn't just adhere to ideas put forth by the Democrats. Republicans should give up their ideology, but the other doesn't have to.
You are delusional if you think Democrats put forward a purely ideological, uncompromising bill. Oh for sure it’s no free market bill, but it’s very, very similar to earlier Republican ideas from people like Bob Dole during his doomed campaign. Nor am I saying ideology doesn’t come into play; my one critique of ideology is when it is take so far it becomes uncompromising and nothing gets done at all.
The Republican alternatives to the Health Care Bill were more market-based and yes, based on their ideology. (I compiled a list of the offerings put forth in the last Congress.) We can argue if these were good ideas, but we can't say that the GOP had no ideas.
The GOP was in power for years and came up with no ideas. The fact that they proposed alternatives was essentially meaningless, done more to provide contrast and cover than to offer meaningful solutions. If they wanted to pass healthcare reform they would have done it ten years ago.
As for Wyden/Bennett, I think it was a great idea, but I do wonder why no one who supported it was out there writing letters to Congress or putting feet on the ground to make it viable. The plan never seemed to garner much attention beyond the punditocracy, when what it needed was citizen involvement.
How do you know this? Do you know that people weren’t contacting their congress critters? I mean, there was a good deal of blog/news coverage of the plan. Lots of attention for it. I suppose there were as many people writing their congress critters and putting their feet on the ground (not sure how you do this for a specific bill but okay) as there were for the ACA. How would citizen involvement have changed the outcome? The outcome was determined much more by special interests and lobbyists, and I don’t think you could have gotten the sort of grassroots levels you would need for any one particular bill.
The health care issue is going to involve a clash of ideologies. That's part of democracy. I do think there needs to be something out there in the area of health reform. But I think it means finding a solution agreeable to all sides instead of asking one side to just capitulate.
I’m not sure this is possible. Agreeable to all sides? Not gonna happen. I mean, that’s a very noble idea but it’s not very realistic. Sometimes one side has to capitulate. Sometimes compromise is just one long train-wreck of capitulations.
Subsidiarity calls for each task being undertaken at the lowest level of society possible. My support for a federally run military does not come into conflict with my support for subsidiarity. Similarly, I don’t think the states are sufficient to handle healthcare (though, to be fair, I do mention my support for Wyden’s opt-out plan and his earlier bill which was more state-based, so there is room for wiggling here.) I see no conflict in supporting decentralized education and centralized health insurance like single-payer.
I don’t find the perverse incentives argument all that compelling, actually. What we have is a huge systemic failure based on the bad decisions of all parties. But the nature of asymmetric information here needs to be factored in. A lot of people buying homes didn’t understand what they were getting into. A lot of people under-water in their homes now would genuinely like to be able to pay for them. A lot of these same people got stuck with an adjustable-rate mortgage and didn’t understand what that meant for them a few years down the line, or were told that they could refinance and get an even better deal. A lot of people were suckered by people who knew better. Because they didn’t know better. Oh I’m sure some of them did, but I’d bet the vast majority got on the buy-now bandwagon and were greeted by lenders only too happy to take their money.
The incentive argument just leaves all of this out. Who is going to be effected by these perverse incentives? If homeowners get a second shot at paying off their mortgages with more reasonable rates, or at a price closer to market value (probably a better deal than a bank will get with a foreclosure) will this lead other people to go buy homes they can’t afford? Maybe some. Probably not many. And certainly with stricter lending requirements I can’t see how these people would be able to do it in the first place. There will always be bad apples, but what we’re dealing with is a huge, nation-wide problem. Probably a lot of changes need to be made to make home buying a safer bet for everyone involved and less of a subsidized enterprise. I'm fine with this. But I think in the immediate term, worrying about perverse incentives for home owners is the wrong concern even if it has some validity.
Honestly, I have no qualms with people who critique a system and then participate in it for lack of alternative choices. But Rand's critique - which, as I understand it, is quite a great deal more extreme than many alternative libertarian critiques - makes her participation more hypocritical. I understand why she did it; but it would be nice if she had understood why other people did it. Her critique was not simply that these systems were wrong, but that those who relied on them were lesser people. Unless I am utterly misunderstanding objectivism and Randian thought. Which I don't think I am.
Quite right. I think this is also why it is sometimes called "speculative" as opposed to "science" fiction. There is a bit of hope and a bit of power-skepticism in much of science fiction.
In the Accidental Time Machine (Haldeman) he explores various futures. There's the one without science (for the populace at least) wherein the entire East Coast of the United States is a totalitarian theocracy. There's the future Los Angeles (essentially all of the West) where everyone lives such a good life, they have a super computer running the joint and degrees in shopping and other inanities. And then the far, far distant future, where some other time traveler has brought a virus which has wiped out most of the world's population.
So I think it can be at once pro-science and very concerned both with power and overreach - and accidents, for that matter.
Maybe, maybe not. I think communities have to think of the larger picture. A town has to see itself, in some regards, as a brand - especially if you want to attract business, young people, tourists, etc. So who cares if it’s rent-seeking? If you let Wal*Mart into historic downtown you lose the historic downtown. And then maybe you lose your town’s charm, identity, branding. Its ability to sell itself to outsiders. All for a Wal*Mart downtown. If that’s rent-seeking sign me up for more rent-seeking.
I agree completely it’s not a left/right issue. However I would say localism (how I define it) is both New Urbanism (something I’ve been a fan of for a very long time) and political autonomy, especially on traditionally local issues such as education. So I’m a big local-education proponent. I hate testing regimes. Couple that with New Urbanism and support for local art and local business, and that’s my localism.
Another way to think about localism is neighborhood-ism. So create policies that reverse the trend toward mass-suburbanization and big-boxing. Create walkable neighborhoods with mixed zoning, mass transit, etc. You could say this is personal taste and I wouldn’t argue with you, but I think it also creates better communities, helps protect the environment, and is more natural than the way we’ve been building neighborhoods for the past few decades. That model is only sustainable with heavily subsidized oil and a heavily subsidized road-based infrastructure. Naturally, communities were built more walkable with smaller stores placed closer to the communities they served. That’s a tradition disrupted by government subsidies and corporate efficiencies. I would like to reverse that very much, and would gladly support gas taxes, carbon taxes, whatever to help do so.
Great piece. I’m no traditionalist, so when I say there’s tragedy in the loss of tradition, I think I’m probably referring more to the loss of romance than to the loss of rigid traditionalism. I think JL’s comment above really cuts to the heart of the matter when it comes to traditionalist revivals at least among religious groups, and why I’m so uncomfortable with any self-definition as a traditionalist. I do think folkways are important because I think they pass on some intangible wisdom/way of living that doesn’t necessarily make sense, but does in some small way help us remain fully human. I’ve written about this before with birthing - how modern medicine replaced midwives, and the knock-em-out-drag-em-out birthing regime replaced more natural methods, and really took the woman out of her own birth experience. This is what I’m talking about. And I realize I’m picking and choosing. But I’m okay with that. In the long run, all traditions are chosen. Everyone picks and chooses. The march of human social evolution just means we have more choices, and have to be even more introspective about them.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Mandate”
Great point, Aaron. I think yore right on the money.
"
A little government rebalancing could take care of that.
"
I agree this makes some sense excerpt who pays for a catastrophe? We really just need universal catastrophic coverage.
"
I'm a civil libertarian with free market pragmatism built in, but I'm no card carrying libertarian, Mike.
Will, a lot of things scare me a lot more than a fairly boilerplate healthcare mandate. Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland...all countries with a mandate of some sort. Singapore has mandated savings. Actually Social Security is essentially mandated savings. We have plenty of precedence for mandates. I don't like the corporatism but I don't see it as unconstitutional.
"
These mythical Framers also forgot to include the subsequent two hundred plus years of legislation and case law.
"
I was just thinking of this.
On “The Importance of Being Insured”
Dennis I said "if". I dont't think you're delusional. I'm just not sure you can actually believe that the ACA is an uncompromising ideological bill. And what Aaron said. I didn't mean to come across as pissy as I did.
"
Trumwill -
How about we set up a system of exchanges and give people vouchers based on their income to help pay for private insurance. We could also expand Medicaid for the poorest Americans. This would lead to a three-tiered system instead of a two-tiered system (and maybe four-tiered if you count Medicare).
"
Dennis,
You are delusional if you think Democrats put forward a purely ideological, uncompromising bill. Oh for sure it’s no free market bill, but it’s very, very similar to earlier Republican ideas from people like Bob Dole during his doomed campaign. Nor am I saying ideology doesn’t come into play; my one critique of ideology is when it is take so far it becomes uncompromising and nothing gets done at all.
The GOP was in power for years and came up with no ideas. The fact that they proposed alternatives was essentially meaningless, done more to provide contrast and cover than to offer meaningful solutions. If they wanted to pass healthcare reform they would have done it ten years ago.
How do you know this? Do you know that people weren’t contacting their congress critters? I mean, there was a good deal of blog/news coverage of the plan. Lots of attention for it. I suppose there were as many people writing their congress critters and putting their feet on the ground (not sure how you do this for a specific bill but okay) as there were for the ACA. How would citizen involvement have changed the outcome? The outcome was determined much more by special interests and lobbyists, and I don’t think you could have gotten the sort of grassroots levels you would need for any one particular bill.
I’m not sure this is possible. Agreeable to all sides? Not gonna happen. I mean, that’s a very noble idea but it’s not very realistic. Sometimes one side has to capitulate. Sometimes compromise is just one long train-wreck of capitulations.
"
Dennis -
Subsidiarity calls for each task being undertaken at the lowest level of society possible. My support for a federally run military does not come into conflict with my support for subsidiarity. Similarly, I don’t think the states are sufficient to handle healthcare (though, to be fair, I do mention my support for Wyden’s opt-out plan and his earlier bill which was more state-based, so there is room for wiggling here.) I see no conflict in supporting decentralized education and centralized health insurance like single-payer.
On “Legislating from the bench”
I agree completely.
On “Wealth Transfer”
Thanks, Tysche. You can get your avatar set up at www.gravatar.com.
"
I don’t find the perverse incentives argument all that compelling, actually. What we have is a huge systemic failure based on the bad decisions of all parties. But the nature of asymmetric information here needs to be factored in. A lot of people buying homes didn’t understand what they were getting into. A lot of people under-water in their homes now would genuinely like to be able to pay for them. A lot of these same people got stuck with an adjustable-rate mortgage and didn’t understand what that meant for them a few years down the line, or were told that they could refinance and get an even better deal. A lot of people were suckered by people who knew better. Because they didn’t know better. Oh I’m sure some of them did, but I’d bet the vast majority got on the buy-now bandwagon and were greeted by lenders only too happy to take their money.
The incentive argument just leaves all of this out. Who is going to be effected by these perverse incentives? If homeowners get a second shot at paying off their mortgages with more reasonable rates, or at a price closer to market value (probably a better deal than a bank will get with a foreclosure) will this lead other people to go buy homes they can’t afford? Maybe some. Probably not many. And certainly with stricter lending requirements I can’t see how these people would be able to do it in the first place. There will always be bad apples, but what we’re dealing with is a huge, nation-wide problem. Probably a lot of changes need to be made to make home buying a safer bet for everyone involved and less of a subsidized enterprise. I'm fine with this. But I think in the immediate term, worrying about perverse incentives for home owners is the wrong concern even if it has some validity.
On “Ayn Rand, welfare queen”
Honestly, I have no qualms with people who critique a system and then participate in it for lack of alternative choices. But Rand's critique - which, as I understand it, is quite a great deal more extreme than many alternative libertarian critiques - makes her participation more hypocritical. I understand why she did it; but it would be nice if she had understood why other people did it. Her critique was not simply that these systems were wrong, but that those who relied on them were lesser people. Unless I am utterly misunderstanding objectivism and Randian thought. Which I don't think I am.
"
Right, because Ezra Klein looks with derision on everyone who uses employer-provided benefits.
On “Science in Sci-Fi film”
As all categorizations are bound to be. I think it's fun to explore them deeper (as Holbo does) even if it is an exercise in futility.
"
Quite right. I think this is also why it is sometimes called "speculative" as opposed to "science" fiction. There is a bit of hope and a bit of power-skepticism in much of science fiction.
In the Accidental Time Machine (Haldeman) he explores various futures. There's the one without science (for the populace at least) wherein the entire East Coast of the United States is a totalitarian theocracy. There's the future Los Angeles (essentially all of the West) where everyone lives such a good life, they have a super computer running the joint and degrees in shopping and other inanities. And then the far, far distant future, where some other time traveler has brought a virus which has wiped out most of the world's population.
So I think it can be at once pro-science and very concerned both with power and overreach - and accidents, for that matter.
On “The new old ways are the best”
Yeah pretty much.
"
Dude what are you even talking about?
"
Don't get too ambitious now.
"
Sam -
Maybe, maybe not. I think communities have to think of the larger picture. A town has to see itself, in some regards, as a brand - especially if you want to attract business, young people, tourists, etc. So who cares if it’s rent-seeking? If you let Wal*Mart into historic downtown you lose the historic downtown. And then maybe you lose your town’s charm, identity, branding. Its ability to sell itself to outsiders. All for a Wal*Mart downtown. If that’s rent-seeking sign me up for more rent-seeking.
"
Francis -
I agree completely it’s not a left/right issue. However I would say localism (how I define it) is both New Urbanism (something I’ve been a fan of for a very long time) and political autonomy, especially on traditionally local issues such as education. So I’m a big local-education proponent. I hate testing regimes. Couple that with New Urbanism and support for local art and local business, and that’s my localism.
"
He says it all very well. Too well. This is also why I consider myself a Romantic rather than a Traditionalist or a Conservative. Thanks for the link.
"
Another way to think about localism is neighborhood-ism. So create policies that reverse the trend toward mass-suburbanization and big-boxing. Create walkable neighborhoods with mixed zoning, mass transit, etc. You could say this is personal taste and I wouldn’t argue with you, but I think it also creates better communities, helps protect the environment, and is more natural than the way we’ve been building neighborhoods for the past few decades. That model is only sustainable with heavily subsidized oil and a heavily subsidized road-based infrastructure. Naturally, communities were built more walkable with smaller stores placed closer to the communities they served. That’s a tradition disrupted by government subsidies and corporate efficiencies. I would like to reverse that very much, and would gladly support gas taxes, carbon taxes, whatever to help do so.
"
Rufus -
Great piece. I’m no traditionalist, so when I say there’s tragedy in the loss of tradition, I think I’m probably referring more to the loss of romance than to the loss of rigid traditionalism. I think JL’s comment above really cuts to the heart of the matter when it comes to traditionalist revivals at least among religious groups, and why I’m so uncomfortable with any self-definition as a traditionalist. I do think folkways are important because I think they pass on some intangible wisdom/way of living that doesn’t necessarily make sense, but does in some small way help us remain fully human. I’ve written about this before with birthing - how modern medicine replaced midwives, and the knock-em-out-drag-em-out birthing regime replaced more natural methods, and really took the woman out of her own birth experience. This is what I’m talking about. And I realize I’m picking and choosing. But I’m okay with that. In the long run, all traditions are chosen. Everyone picks and chooses. The march of human social evolution just means we have more choices, and have to be even more introspective about them.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.