34 replies to this topic

[Rational Madman]

I guess you missed my response.

I give up. Forget about it. Thanks for trying.

I don't think you're really attempting to have a discussion, though, because you seem quite disinclined to consider alternative viewpoints.

Edited by Rational Madman, 09 January 2012 - 12:37 AM.

[maxwatt]

I thought he considered and found them inconsistent?

[Rational Madman]

Since this isn't the first discussion that David has contributed to, I was referring more to my impression of his general attitude. But more importantly, I was addressing my exhaustion with the binary reasoning that pervades discourse. To give an example, if one opposes the universal provision of health care, it would not be uncommon to be accused of having a callous attitude to the sufferings of those most afflicted. And if it isn't already clear, this is not my attitude in the least bit. Rather, I have no objection to the cost of the statute, and its abstract appeal in a world without scarcity. However, I do believe that the problem could be addressed in an incremental manner that wouldn't come at the great expense of more systemically important interests---reducing the cost of labor, the removal of barriers to export growth, expanding federal support to cash starved states, and other restructuring costs that are worthy of consideration. Indeed, in my opinion, expanding Medicaid would've been an excellent start, and in all liklihood, it probably wouldn't have evoked the sort of hysterical response that has paralyzed domestic policy making.

Edited by Rational Madman, 17 January 2012 - 09:44 PM.

[maxwatt]

... Indeed, in my opinion, expanding Medicaid would've been an excellent start, and in all liklihood, it probably wouldn't have evoked the sort of hysterical response that has paralyzed domestic policy making.

Dennis Kuchinih actually proposed just that. But the senator from Aetna wouldn't even allow expanding Medicare down to age 50, even, when it was proposed.(Sen. Lieberman)

[Rational Madman]

Well Lieberman did eventually support the final piece of legislation, which expanded the reach of Medicaid. And to be sure, the Republicans would've been loath to support any significant expansion in Medicaid spending. However, though, there is a strong functional relationship between political resistance and the value of past political defeats. And because a successful passage of a more modest piece of legislation would have been much less of a loss to stomach, I expect that the Republicans would've been relatively more conciliatory in future transactions. In order to appease the Democratic left, though, and to improve the bargaining power of the White House, there still should've been an attempt to push a piece of legislation that resembled the scope of the final law---but with the intention of eventually allowing this effort to fail, and to extract concessions in other areas of public policy. At the same time, though, this probably wouldn't have elicited concessions of an appreciable substance, and because the Republicans were most concerned about debt forecasts, they might have been satiated with an agreement that mandated a serious reduction of spending down the road---starting with Defense, Medicare, and Social Security.