Health Care Summit? I’m Bored.

Doesn’t the debate on Obamacare seem so last week already? This morning I tried to force myself to pay attention to today’s steel-cage Kabuki match at the White House.  I got as far as the headlines on the Washington Post homepage (highlighting mine).

Just as a matter of politics, I fail to understand why the administration is so intent on enacting, during an election year, legislation that is so overwhelmingly unpopular.  David Brooks, who generally admires Obama, gives the gruesome numbers:

If you average the last 10 polls, 38 percent of voters support the reform plans and 53 percent oppose. Obama’s reform is more unpopular than Bill Clinton’s was as it died.

7 thoughts on “Health Care Summit? I’m Bored.

  1. Maybe the Dems, or Obama at least, honestly think it's the best thing for the country, and they should pass it despite a short term loss.

    Or maybe I need more coffee.

  2. It's all about power and who has it. I think the Republicans have some good ideas but Washington will only mess them up. The smartest thing is for the individual states to take these matters into their own hands. They are sovereign self-governing entities and Washington always seem to forget that. The states could pass their own Tort reform laws.

    That is in my opinion the big picture that got a fist punched through it.

  3. They can choose to pass their own tort reform laws. States could pass their own laws to prohibit rescission of coverage as well. The government should not stand in the way of interstate health care aka portability.

    These few things would go a long ways and cost a minimal amount. Not to mention its the way things were supposed to be before Congress overstepped it's authority.

  4. David, I'll stipulate that Obama thinks his vision is what's best for the country. But politics is the art of the possible, and it's simply not possible to make changes this sweeping with so little public support.

    Cracked, I agree, let the states try a variety of approaches, and see what works best. States rights (federalism) got a bad rep in the Jim Crow era, and basic civil rights need to be protected at the federal level. But the states should have more leeway on complex policy issues.

  5. I agree with Cracked World that the states could step up and offer their own customized solutions. However, we would need to have a federal government that wasn't hell bent on knuckling the country under a national plan.

    States rights have had an honorable and have been (through Nullification) a much needed check on federal powers before Jim Crow.

  6. Pingback: Lissenup, GOP: “Democrat” Is a Noun. The Adjective is “Democratic” | All That Is Necessary...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>