A Liberal Almost Gets It

Susan Estrich is beginning to face up to what's really the matter with Democrats and what's really the matter with Obama's grand plan for health care reform.

The White House is trying to treat the problem with its health care proposal as a communications problem.

It's not that people don't want the plan; they just don't know how great it is. Our fault, says the president, for not communicating more effectively.

Not so fast.

[...]

I'm all for letting people with pre-existing conditions buy affordable insurance. But letting a slew of older, sicker people into any pool will dramatically increase premiums for everyone in that pool. (What did they say about letting everyone into the pool with federal workers?) So you have to make the young, healthy people join, too, or the costs will be exorbitant.

So, hypothetically, now everyone has insurance — either they pay for it, or we do. Then what happens? Everybody gets more health care. Just exactly how does that save us money? Just exactly how do we pay for it?

Cost controls? In order to get refills for my arthritis medicine every month, I have to get pre-approval each time from the insurance company, which this week has taken most of the week. I always get the approval, of course, because this is medicine you don't stop taking after a month or two. If the insurance company saves money, it's only because making the pharmacist jump through more hoops sometimes means I miss a dose or two. This cannot be what they mean by cost control.

Get rid of unnecessary tests? I'm not really into unnecessary tests. It's getting the necessary tests approved that causes so much trouble.

Paying doctors and hospitals less to give us more? That's bound to work…

Ms. Estrich is giving her fellow Democrats credit way beyond their due.  It's her unspoken assumption that Democrats are simply mistaken.  Somehow Democrats don't quite understand that the current health care takeover plan can't possibly do what they tell us it will do.  But they understand.  You can tell. 

You can tell from the two different stories.  Progressives have one narrative for public consumption: nobody will ever need to worry about their health care, ever again.  But the other discussion, the one that occurs when progressives speak with each other, is all about political strategy.  In that discussion progressives are quite candid about who are primary beneficiaries of health care reform.

PITTSBURGH - Former President Bill Clinton told an audience of liberal online activists Thursday evening that the nation has “entered a new era of progressive politics” that could last for decades if Democrats can pass ambitious measures such as health care reform and climate change.

But we, the stupid people, are gumming up the works by asking questions.  How will this plan reduce costs?  Will it lower costs enough to pay for all this expanded coverage?  Where is the money coming from if it doesn't?  What about the side effects?  Are there other ways we could accomplish the same thing? 

I suppose it's gratifying to find at least one Democrat, Susan Estrich, who's pondered those questions.  But the Democrats in Washington don't have any answers because the questions have nothing whatever to do with the health care legislation they're trying to pass.  It's a political strategy, stupid.  Progressives hope to create dependency on a scale to feed an enduring progressive majority for the next 30 or 40 years.

That's the part that Ms. Estrich needs to get.

Comments

[CaptDMO]

I...I...
I can appreciate the value in examining the opinions of others, but what, exactly, does Ms. Estrich have on her resume/CV, that even ALLUDES to a valuable contribution to eliminating political, and "administrative" obstacles between a dis-ease complaint, a prognosis and a remedy?

The "political" spectacle begins today. I'm watching Newt.
I'm expecting "Thank you for your input, we can't use ANY of it."
or perhaps the new "Obama Plan" (NOT to be criticized) has already included disingenuous counterpoints to the rational thinking that has emerged from us common folks "asking questions", and getting answers, concerning a progressive erosion to the Socialist/Facist New World Order, that has repeatedly proved itself to be the path to equal misery for ALL that are on the wrong end of "administrative" gunpoint.

I ALSO expect the usual plaints of " "WE" MUST act NOW, before the next elections, to pass good-intention soundinglegislation, that "WE" can "fix" later when the Klieg lights are off, and won't reveal the consequences until WELL after the private waterfront dacha sites have been selected and acquired via."eminent domain".

Susan Estrich? ...really?
What was her "position" on "socialized medicine" BEFORE the bandwagon of "NO, that's stupid, and HERE'S WHY!" addressed TARP, "recovery", as well as the initial Pelosi/Reid invitation for bids (how many pages?) to justify a prescription of Opiates for the masses, with another PROMISE of "freedom from consequence"?

Susan Estrich?...REALLY?
In order to get refills for MY arthritis medicine, I have to use part of MY earned income for another bottle of no-name ibuprofen at the drug store, and maybe a banana for breakfast.

[Sissy Willis]

Susan Estrich almost getting it. Who woulda thunk? I always kinda liked her, though, despite the rasping voice and annoyingly wrong-headed liberal mindset. Something sweet and good about her.

Be sure to check out Prof. Jacobson's take: "Obama's Plan in Two Words"

[Tom Bowler]

It's funny but I agree about Susan Estrich, Sissy. I kinda like her, but I like her in spite of her reflexive liberal thinking. I guess she is what a liberal ought to be. Unlike other liberals she has an open mind. Unfortunately she arrives at the wrong conclusion anyway.

Good post by Prof. Jacobson.