Jim Lux's Column on Obama's Health Care

[NashVegas]

This is the one Krugman and Stoller are referencing:

I have been beating up on the Clinton campaign pretty hard lately because I haven't been crazy about the kind of campaign they have been running. And I will admit that my heart has been won by the enthusiasm of all those young and passionate Obama supporters.

But there are still certain things that make me really, really nervous about Obama. At the top of that list is the health care debate, where I think he's just wrong about the importance of universality, and where he's employed Harry and Louise-style tactics to argue against Clinton's plan. My concerns shifted into overdrive, though, when I noticed that the Obama campaign is now using Rep. Jim Cooper as a spokesperson/surrogate on health care.

I was part of the Clinton White House team on the health care reform issue in 1993/94, and no Democrat did more to destroy our chances in that fight than Jim Cooper. We had laid down a marker very early that we thought universal coverage was the most essential element to getting a good package, saying we were to happy to negotiate over the details but that universality was our bottom line.

the rest is here:

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4004

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

1. Cooper's plan would have passed. Hillary's plan failed 2 terms in a row

Hillary can't get any health care plan passed.

She has a mandatory Universal INSURANCE plan.

That is what you call "Mitt-Care".

This resulted in premium increases in Massacheusetts.

[ShortnFiery]

3. "Universal" implies that dreaded "nanny state" that even us left-libertarians despise.

What's next, are we going to go back to "committing people" who don't pose a threat because some "Nanny State Politician" or "Wealthy American" considers them INSANE?

VERY FEW *mandates* make sense and are NOT "in tune" with what our founders intended for our Nation within The Constitution. :shrug:

[NashVegas]

5. I'm Not a Fan of the Mandates

However, few Americans who cry out for universal, European-style health care seem to be aware (or purposely ignore) that Europeans are taxed up the ying-yang for those benefits; if we start out by saying 'okay, everyone who can afford to lose another 10%-20% of their monthly paycheck is going to fund universal health care,' it will never happen.

[nxylas]

6. Time to dig out the Nationmaster "most taxed" chart again

Sorry to those of you who are probably getting tired of seeing me post this link, but for those of you who haven't, check out nos 20-22 on the list.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_wed_sin_wor-total-tax-wedge-single-worker

[NashVegas]

9. And Those Complaints About National Health?

My friends in the top 10 have no complaints about the services they receive - which also includes higher education.

[ShortnFiery]

11. Sorry, even though I'm LEFT, I still have a strong libertarian, don't tread on me, attitude.

Sure, FOR THE COMMON GOOD, is excellent and keeping with the spirit of OUR Constitution. But dammit, the government should not mandate much more than seat belts. I don't need a "nanny state" telling me how I'm to live my life and *specific mandates* as to how we MUST raise our children. :crazy:

What's next? If you don't go to the gym 3x a week and punch in a Hill-Billy time clock, your insurance rates will go up?

"Big Brother" under the soft fascist glove of Neo-liberalism. :thumbsdown:

[Fovea]

15. Seat belts are a great example.

You are surrounded by people telling you how to raise your kids and live your life.

Wanna see how much? Feed your kids bread and water for a week, or beat them silly then let them go to school. See if at the end of that week you are still in possession of kids.

Your romantic attachment to a way of life that only exists on frontiers, and then until the arrival of civilization, is really disturbing, and IMO elevates your unfettered condition above the common good. Since the enforcers of the common good have guns and prisons, this is not gonna work for you.

If libertarianism worked, right to work states would be unfettered engines of shared prosperity, rather than nudging developed nations poverty rates and borrowing from the national purse at rates far higher than nanny states like Calif.

I am not arguing for a 'nanny state' I think adults should have a much freedom as possible, but there are always practical limits, as the nice policeman told me when he assured me that firing my .50 cal rifle in city limits was verboten.

[nxylas]

16. Mind if I steal your 4th paragraph?

I'd like to use it as my sig quote on Peace Takes Courage.

[Fovea]

18. Go right ahead.

And thank you for taking the time to read my post.

[nxylas]

19. Thanks n/t

[Fovea]

12. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

are the original mandates.

None of the three are possible without health.
Not just my health, but yours as well, if you decide to wander around
with untreated TB, or ebola for example. We use the term public health. And the nanny state already prevents you, for example, from opening a fast food restaurant that allows rats to wander the kitchen. Perhaps you would prefer market forces eventually close that restaurant, but the rest of us don't even want it opening.

We are currently restricting the freedom of certain sick people and have been forever.

The 'right' you are defending is entirely illusory, if you can ever say it existed after 1919. But frankly, isolation of the sick by fiat certainly goes back in western legal systems to before the black death of the 14th C.

So much for the inalienable right to spread cholera and plague. On the matter of public health, it's been a nanny state basically since the time of Solon, IIRC.

[ShortnFiery]

2. The only question I have is: What did The Clintonian DLC Campaign promise, one each, Jim Lux?

:evilgrin:

[calmblueocean]

4. To me, universality without socialized medicine or single-payer isn't worth a darn.

What makes universal health care truly universal in those cases is that health care is a service available to all, even to those who cannot pay.

A universal mandate to purchase health insurance doesn't even deserve the mantle of "universal health care". If you can't afford it, it's still not available to you, no matter what labels you use. I've written before about why Hillary's plan will in reality end up covering less people than Obama's plan because her subsidies don't subsidize: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4595829&mesg_id=4599449

To me, a universal mandate to purchase health insurance is just a stalking horse for the HMO industry. It's a mockery of what real universality is supposed to mean, and an example of corporate Democrats co-opting the language of the left but excising it of its meaning. To be fair, I think Obama is guilty of this too when he touts his plan as "universal".

[mrreowwr_kittty]

7. If "universality" = mandatory insurance, then no thank you.

Clinton still hasn't explained how the mandate will be enforced, nor how it will be determined whether you are entitled to a subsidized plan or not.

I am a single, self-employed person. I have enough fixed expenses as it is. I don't need to add several hundred a month for some bullshit "coverage" with a high deductible through a company that will then try to screw me out of it when I dare to try and use my plan.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

8. we need a government-run health system without the insurance companies

the richer you are the more you pay out of your salary but not to a wicked profit monger insurance firm. One has to make a start to wean ourselves off the insurance companies. I don't want to be forced to be with an insrance company.

[ShortnFiery]

10. No, we need not have the government dictate any more FEES.

The only thing "universal" about HRC's plan is that HER buddies who are Execs in the HMOs will even become MORE economically fat and arrogant.

We need to crack down on the WASTE, but we don't need to MANDATE participation.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

13. If you have a system like in the UK it is better

It is a relief not to have to worry whether you are covered or not - free at the point of use. The UK NHS works well. I think any government control should be at the state level or even county. Everybody deserves healthare free at the point of use. Obviously those who cannot afford a monthly payment will be exempt.

[TexasObserver]

14. MIKE LUX, not Jim.

He's a good guy. You're not giving the entire gist of his thoughts.

He's from Lincoln, Nebraska originally, and ran Citizens Action Network during the early Reagan years, and real hard worker for the party. Went to DC and worked in Bubba's first term.

Good Guy. I've known him 26 years, worked with him on some midwest things in the 80s.

[NashVegas]

17. Call It a Transposition Error

And you're right, but there's a copyright rule, here on DU, so if people want to read his full post, they'll have to read the whole thing - where he rips into Cooper even harder.

I take it you're an Obama volunteer, now?