Thoughts on the healthcare legislation
My record on predictions is very far from perfect and at least a short walk from good, but I can’t help but think about what this legislation means.
The first result is already here: Democrats finally feeling as though, if they put their minds to it, they can accomplish things despite opposition (and unprincipled, dishonest, hysterical opposition at that). That will help them a lot: once you punch the bully in the nose and find out that you don’t get killed, you feel a new sense of power.
The second result will show up this summer—June, July, and August—by which time people will see benefits in their own lives, which (as I mentioned earlier), the media will mine for human-interest feature stories. Also, people will start to note that there are no death panels, their access to healthcare is not rationed, and (for the vast majority), they continue to see their regular doctor and get their regular care, except that seniors will get help with the Medicare prescription drug donut hole and people find that they can stop worrying about pre-existing conditions and fights with insurance companies to keep their coverage when they get sick and start to use the insurance.
In fact, by this summer, I think people are going to be finding that they really like it. This legislation affects people in their daily lives and indeed at a crisis (minor or major) in their lives. And, of course, millions and millions of people will get healthcare coverage and access to healthcare for the first time in their lives—and parents who have children born with pre-existing conditions can finally be assured of healthcare for their children. There will be an enormous number of people completely grateful for this legislation. And that is still four months before the Fall elections.
What the GOP did was tie themselves with unmistakable and unbreakable bonds to the rejection of the legislation, and when people find that they like the result of the legislation, and all the promised dire events (death panels, rationing, etc.) fail to materialize, I think that they will turn on the GOP. Not everyone, of course—there’s that irreducible 27% that will hang on forever. But the GOP may have signed its death warrant by being so nakedly and uniformly opposed: they will get no credit whatsoever, except for fighting something that people turn out to like. People, finding that the legislation has improved (and in some cases saved) their lives, will remember and say to themselves, “Hey, the GOP fought this.” In the meantime, the GOP keeps pointing out that not a single member of the GOP voted for the bill—something I believe they will regret emphasizing.
Over the next 6-8 years, problems in the implementation will arise and be fixed, and the legislation improved and extended, as is normal when such a big system must be tuned and adjusted. I think the adjustments will go quickly and easily: people will speak right up about any problems they encounter, and Democrats (feeling more powerful) will be quick to make their signature legislation better for people. People are going to think, “This is the way it should be.” And I bet a public single-payer option will be implemented in that time frame: people will want it because they will want to reduce their premiums.
Within 4-5 years, people will start to act on their realization that they can quit their jobs, try new jogs, trying starting up their own business, and so on, without worrying about their family’s medical coverage and care. One enormous worry will be lifted from their shoulders, and the country as a whole will benefit from a new sense of freedom and greater and easier labor mobility: no more hanging onto a dead-end job just for the health insurance.
Who knows, people may even start to recognize that the US is now catching up to where other nations have been for decades.
Ten to fifteen years out, people will start to get their heads around that that this great advance is due to our first African-American president—with his very first Congress, no less—and by our first female Speaker of the House. Recognizing that an African-American and a woman delivered this enormous benefit will, I believe, undermine some old prejudices and help the younger generation in their greater tolerance and acceptance of our national diversity. And it’s made even more impressive by the fact that liberals have been trying to pass this measure for more than a century.
I think mistermix is exactly right in this post (worth the click): Obama was careful to stay back out of the fray and not touch the legislation (else the Dems in Congress would feel little ownership and find No votes easier to cast), and he let Congress chew on it to the point that Congress itself was sort of sick of it and ready to act on it to get it out of the place. Then he steps in and takes leadership. And Nancy Pelosi is a strong speaker who knows exactly what she’s doing. They did deliver.
I will add that this is one of the few times in my life when I was witnessing something and knew at the time I was watching that it was history in the making. Another time was when Mr. Beetner and I spent hours in front of the TV watching the Judiciary Committee hearings at the time Nixon’s impeachment was in progress.
UPDATE: BTW, in the debate, it was interesting to see the number of Republicans that overtly used fear-mongering.
I hope you’re right, but I fear you’re not. People won’t suddenly realize there are no death panels; if that kind of rationality were possible in American politics we’d never have been discussing them in the first place. If they aren’t there in reality, they’ll be imagined. Democrats have just taken ownership of every single remaining problem in American health care–and the media will be just as eager to pick those up as it is to pick up positive stories about the reforms. Every financial and employment-related problem going forward (and there will be many over the next couple of election cycles) will be laid at the feet of Obama and his socialistic policies.
Will the GOP pay some kind of price for having stood against what will eventually be regarded as an untouchable pillar of American politics? I don’t think so. Even to day they can get away with rhetorically “defending” Medicare and Social Security even though they were (and many still are) against them today. Nobody seems to make much of the irony or disingenuousness. Why will this be any different?
Democrats are going to lose a good many House seats (but maybe not their majority). The media and Republicans will trumpet this as evidence of a complete rejection of his policies by the American people. In reality, it’ll just be the result of generalized frustration over continued high unemployment by ill-informed undecided voters.
Obama will get his second term, but–and I hesitate to even write this–I think someone is going to make a serious attempt on his life before he steps down as president. I think it’s also likely that we’ll see some other kind of violence a la Tim McVeigh. I personally know people, local conservatives, who are predicting a violent revolution in their lifetimes as a result of the HCR passage. The guy I’m thinking of is certainly an ideologue, but not fringe; he’s a regular guest on the local public radio station.
scott
22 March 2010 at 9:30 am
Oh yes; it’s historic. Most national tragedies are so. The Liberals and their Minority sharecroppers have finally managed to vote themselves another major entitlement program – one that I doubt that our economy can support.
You are witnessing the death knell of America, which was always the Liberal’s plan.
I just hope and pray that Americans wake up in time to wreak their vengeance upon these filth and ensure that none of them or their kin ever get the chance to enjoy their ill-gotten gains.
jonolan
22 March 2010 at 9:31 am
Well, for me a “tragedy” is when a breadwinner or a child dies because the insurance company dropped them, or because they couldn’t get insurance because of a pre-existing condition, or simply because they couldn’t afford it.
Your racist comment (“minority sharecroppers”) pretty much defines you, I think. And far from being the death knell for America, it’s a sign of hope that we can fight back against big business (the insurance companies) and the dishonesty and mean-spiritedness of the GOP, which in this instance even fought against ideas that they themselves had proposed.
I know of no filth involved in this except the dishonest scum on which the GOP relies. Any ill-gotten gains in this process are those obtained by the insurance companies who then refused to honor the policies they sold.
Have a nice day.
LeisureGuy
22 March 2010 at 9:43 am
Believe as you will. You’re utterly wrong though on almost every point.
jonolan
22 March 2010 at 10:06 am
This is what the GOP had as solutions:
http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Summary_of_Republican_Alternative_Health_Care_plan_Updated_11-04-09.pdf
Whether people want to believe what it says is up to them, but the solutions seem very sensible to me. Eerily similar to what the Dems promised, in fact. Not very “Party of No”ish, don’t you think? And the summary took ONE PAGE. I imagine the actual bill would be a bit larger, of course.
Now the Democrats, their bill was 2,000 pages. I shudder to think what is in it, but as Pelosi said, ““But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” (http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1576)
Hmm…
Anthony
22 March 2010 at 10:08 am
Easy to say, Jonolan. But hard to document.
LeisureGuy
22 March 2010 at 10:09 am
So are every one of the “benefits” you cited.
jonolan
22 March 2010 at 10:10 am
Well, you’re wrong there, too, Jonolan. Documentation of benefits:
How about this chart in the LA Times that specifies clearly (“documents”) the benefits to which I referred?
Will you be able to admit that you’re wrong here? Probably not.
BTW, here’s a chart on the deficit reduction due to this reform. The GOP kept talking about how much the bill would cost and denied that it would reduce the deficit. How little they know!
LeisureGuy
22 March 2010 at 10:21 am
I see a list of things from the LA Times that don’t have that much to do with what you were describing. I suppose though that you’re right; the greater the level of entitlements and subsidies that people receive, the less they’ll be concerned about their jobs.
As for the CBO’s predictions – they’re horribly flawed and a predicated on a lot of things that may or may not survive the reconciliation process. They also don’t take into account the quelling effect the additional taxes and regulations will have on businesses, which could negatively impact all their numbers since business pay a significant portion of the taxes that fund the federal budget.
jonolan
22 March 2010 at 10:46 am
I once had a dear friend who used to say that one had to be “greedy, evil, mean and ignorant” to be a Republican. He often rudely said this to their faces. Strangely, none were ever deeply offended and many were proud to acknowledge the characterization. I conclude that the worst of them believe that they had to be so for self preservation in a frightening and confusing world.
Another reason for the tolerance of this epithet is that the statement represents a truth about each of us – a part of human DNA which we all possess on a continuum from honest shame to appalling bestiality.
The problem is too complex to be very often successfully addressed in verbal argumentation, and I think we can waste a lot of our good time only hardening the positions of the brutes among us.
Bob Slaughter
22 March 2010 at 10:55 am
No, Jonolan. Read more carefully. Some of the benefits I mentioned were the end of recission (insurance companies dropping you when you get sick and start to use the insurance) and the end of pre-existing conditions. Those are great benefits in the view of most (particularly those who have been burned by the policies or know people who have), and those are documented in the chart.
Perhaps you could begin including a link to the evidence behind the statements you make?
And, Bob, I think you’re right. I’m just astonished at the blandness with which the GOP offers absolutely false statements.
LeisureGuy
22 March 2010 at 11:09 am
@Anthony: I call them “party of no” in part because, for example, every single member of the GOP voted against a bill that you describe as strangely similar to their own. And how some (Grassley, for example) objected to their own proposals when they were incorporated into the bill. Plus, of course, the GOP members who went onto the House balcony to stir up the crowd more.
On the whole, I believe that the American people will like the bill, as I’ve said. That’s based in part how well the various components poll when they were separated from the total bill.
Anthony, you asked once why not just make the changes piecemeal—e.g., start with banning recission and pre-existing conditions. The reason is that it’s like a 3-legged stool: it won’t work until you have all three legs. If you simply banned those tactics, then people would drops insurance until they need it, so that the insurance pool from which premiums are drawn becomes smaller (and sicker) so rates go through the roof. What is necessary to ban those is to keep the pool large enough so that insurance works as it should: spreading the risk (and costs) over a large enough base so that all can afford it.
LeisureGuy
22 March 2010 at 11:14 am
BTW, Anthony, the GOP plan is so short compared to the Democrat’s bill because the Democrat’s effort is a complete bill, with all the necessary legislative boilerplate. If the GOP had ever developed an actual bill, it would also have been quite lengthy. You’ll note that the LA Times chart of benefits is much shorter than the bill, more comparable to the GOP chart. (That is more an apples-to-apples comparison.)
LeisureGuy
22 March 2010 at 11:22 am
@ jonolan: More documentation (and explanation) of benefits.
LeisureGuy
22 March 2010 at 2:46 pm