Dem mixed messages - I have a dog named Bingo
by von
Matt Yglesias writes perceptively on why Democratic health care reform is failing, but -- perhaps understandably -- doesn't see his own role:
A disheartened Ezra Klein looks at a WSJ/NBC poll showing that people have lots of false beliefs about the president’s health care agenda and offers the following chart:
Graph showing opinions on coverage of illegals, government takeover, abortion funding, and "pulling the plug on Grandma."
My first thought is “reform opponents are lying like crazy and it’s working.” My second thought is that three out of these four things would actually be a good idea.
.....
.... Obama gets accused of wanting a single-payer system. Then I have to say “no! no! he doesn’t! that’s a slander . . . not there’s anything wrong with single-payer.” It’s a damn dirty lie to say that the government will fund abortion services, but really the government should fund abortion services.
Yglesias concludes, in part: "I think this double-talk makes it hard to convince people that the process isn’t just being driven by people who secretly do want a government takeover of health insurance." This is true, but kinda misses Yglesias' own point a few paragraphs above. In fact, the Democratic Party's health care plans are being driven by people who want a government takeover of health care. For instance, Yglesias himself.
Seems the lying is coming from the reform advocates. The alleged "lies" are actually what the advocates want it looks like.
Yglesias, and a considerable number of others, hope that the Democrat's reform package will be the first step towards a nationalized health case system. It's the camel's nose under the tent approach; the so-called "incrementalist approach". And there's nothing wrong with letting the camel's nose into the tent if you indeed favor letting the entire camel in the tent: The sum of all the increments, after all, is government-run health care. But the "camel's nose" approach to health care reform makes it pretty much impossible to convince folks who don't much like government-run health care that the Democratic plan won't lead to government-run health care. For a considerable number of Democratic supporters, the Democratic plan absolutely does include government-run health care .... just not at this moment.
It's also crazy for Yglesias to blame "lies" for the fact that most voters have reasoned, correctly, that some of the louder folks pushing Democratic health care want "coverage for illegals," a "government takeover" of health care, and "tax-payer funded abortions,"* and to fear to some or all of these proposals are coming -- if not this year, then soon. Yglesias himself wants all of those things. So do a considerable number of (although not all) liberal Democrats.** Voters aren't stupid: they see this and think that the current Democratic proposal -- whatever its contents -- is a just ploy to set up a future reform.
One can go on regarding all the other deficiencies in the Democratic sales job on health care reform -- which are legion, and include the fact that Democratic proposals contain some stupid ideas and Democrats have largely ignored the well-reasoned, bipartisan Wyden-Bennett plan (in part because of union pressure). And I'm not typically in the job of advising the other side regarding how it can improve its arguments. Still, a significant (tho' not sole) reason for the Democratic mis-fires is that a lot of smart Democrats*** can't seem to see their own, counterproductive role in the sales job. Yglesias' post is Exhibit A in that regard.
*I should note that I support coverage for all persons, documented or not, like Yglesias. Of course, the current Democratic plans do not offer such coverage -- another reason why I oppose them.
**Yglesias writes, with apparent surprise: "Interestingly, the one thing that doesn’t get a majority is the thing that’s actually a bad idea—killing grandma." I don't know why Yglesias should be surprised by this. A majority of voters correctly perceive that proponents of Democratic reform (e.g., Yglesias) don't actually want "death squads," even in their end game of a government-run health care system.
***E.g., Yglesias, whom I very much enjoy reading.
obsidianwings.blogs.com |
