Published on February 4, 2008
in politics.
From my point of view, Barack Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s health plans have more similarities than differences, but there is one fundamental point of departure between the two proposals: Hillary would impose an individual mandate, requiring everyone to buy health insurance. Obama would not.
He argues that his plan is more pragmatic on a political level. Any proposal that includes an individual mandate, he believes, simply won’t get enough support to actually get through congress and to his desk.
But Obama also believes that his plan will result in de facto universal coverage: Since everyone really wants insurance, they’ll rush to buy it if it’s affordable.
Paul Krugman disagrees:
“An Obama-type plan would also face the problem of healthy people who decide to take their chances or don’t sign up until they develop medical problems, thereby raising premiums for everyone else,” Krugman said in a New York Times column recently.
Despite my oft-neglected inner libertarian telling me not to force people to do the right thing, I’m tempted to agree with Krugman. A lot of people won’t get coverage, even if it’s inexpensive. That’s clear even now, as many middle class people who can afford coverage have opted out of the system. Still, Obama has a point about the slim likelihood of a mandate making it through our dumb congress. I’m at a loss.
Observation: It seems that Hillary’s plan is more hopeful, doesn’t it? Isn’t Obama supposed to be the hopeful, “yes, we can” candidate? I think he is, but this issue appears to be an exception. Or is it? I suppose that Obama is hopeful that people will opt to get coverage. Clinton is hopeful that congress can do the right thing and pass health care reform that includes a mandate.
Cynical, defeatist thought: They’re both delusional.
Published on January 31, 2008
in politics.
From Democracy in America:
It’s as if he spent the past seven years hibernating in an underwater grotto, rolled over, stretched, yawned, made some sandals from ropes of seaweed, ate a few barnacles and paddled up to shore.
Answer after the jump.
Continue reading ‘Guess who’s back!’
Published on January 30, 2008
in politics.
From a post I wrote in November:
Still, there are aspects of [John McCain's] personality that I like, namely his surly, unscripted side. I’m not talking about the highly cultivated “maverick” shtick, but rather the side that’s not afraid to call a college kid a “little jerk” for asking him if he’s too old to be president. I find his notorious temper oddly appealing. (If he were elected, it would concern me more, but at this point his chances seem pretty slim.)
Having won the Florida primary, John McCain is now considered likely (if not quite guaranteed) to win the GOP nomination. A lot can change in a few months! While he’s still far from taking the oath of office, he’s doing much better than I (and everyone else) predicted.
I wonder how much McCain’s appeal comes from being seen, however erroneously, as the anti-establishment candidate. If he’s the frontrunner, won’t he lose his outsider appeal? And surely the press will start to give him long overdue scrutiny.
Published on January 22, 2008
in politics.
No, I will not respect your Confederate heritage, you treasonous bigot:
So slack is our grasp of history and principle that we seem unable to think of the Confederacy as other than “offensive” to blacks. But there are two Republican candidates in this election—[Mike Huckabee and] the absurd and sinister Ron Paul being the other—who choose this crucial moment in our time to exalt those who attempted to destroy the Union by force, and those who solicited the help of foreign powers in order to do so, and whose treason led to the violent deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Should their patriotism be questioned? I would say most definitely yes, and questioned repeatedly, at that, perhaps especially if they are seeking the nomination of the party of Lincoln.
–Christopher Hitchens, “Why are the media ignoring Mike Huckabee’s remarks about the Confederate flag?”
I’d also like to second Hitchens’ characterization of Ron Paul as “absurd and sinister.” More absurd than sinister, but still.
Published on November 1, 2007
in politics.
This from the Harper’s magazine’s weekly e-newsletter:
Senator John McCain promised workers at Thompson Center Arms, a small-weapons factory in Rochester, New Hampshire, that he would “follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell” and “shoot him with your products.” McCain also promised that if he were elected “the background music would be ABBA in the elevators all over the White House” and proposed “Take a Chance on Me” as his campaign song.
Although it was a short-lived romance, there was a time when I was smitten with John McCain. (I made the mistake of actually taking a closer look at his positions on various issues.)
Still, there are aspects of his personality that I like, namely his surly, unscripted side. I’m not talking about the highly cultivated “maverick” shtick, but rather the side that’s not afraid to call a college kid a “little jerk” for asking him if he’s too old to be president. I find his notorious temper oddly appealing. (If he were elected, it would concern me more, but at this point his chances seem pretty slim.) And then there’s the ABBA quote. That’s just great. He’s a multifaceted guy. One minute it’s wild-west-, pulp-novel-style declarations of vengeance. The next it’s Swedish pop music in the White House.
The truculent quote above fits squarely with McCain’s surly side. But it also fits into the theme of overall Republican belligerence and false bravado, the kind exemplified by the Napoleon from New York, Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani’s belligerence is purely demagogic—designed to cater to prejudice and insecurity. It is in no way meant to advance any kind of rational policy.
At least when it comes from McCain there seems to be an appreciation for the absurd, a degree of playfulness, even.
Published on October 26, 2007
in politics.
Which candidate for president said these words recently?
Slate: You talk about the need for arts education in school. Why? And how have you benefited from being a musician?
?????: The discipline that one learns from it is important, but also the stimulation and creativity. If an education system is only left-brain and it does not properly stimulate the right brain, then it’s no small wonder why students are bored to the point of quitting. We lose 6,000 kids a day to drop-out. A third of students in our public schools will drop out of school. It’s not because these kids are dumb. They are bored. What music and the arts do is make sure that those who are right-brain oriented have their lives touched as much as kids who are logic-centered. It’s our creativity that becomes our cultural vehicle and gives us continuity between one generation and the next. Without that continuity, we not only lose some songs or artwork, we lose our capacity to transmit our culture.
Click here to get the answer, or just continue reading and it will become clear….
Mike Huckabee stands no chance of winning my vote, but he has certainly won my respect. He’s a politician who’s both incredibly conservative and, dare I say it, compassionate. He has conservative views, but you can clearly see that they’re the result of genuine thought, not some Rovian calculation. And he doesn’t vilify people with different points of view or seek to impose his conservative creed on the entire population.
Continue reading ‘Quiz’
Published on October 24, 2007
in politics.
I’m sorry, I meant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Silly me. Well, can you really blame a guy for getting them confused? Their names are pretty similar.
It’s a new spin on the ‘elect Democrats and the terrorists win’ canard. Now it’s ‘elect Barack Obama and you’re actually electing the leader of al Qaeda.’
If you have no idea what I’m talking about, I’m referring to Mitt Romney’s difficulty in distinguishing Osama bin Laden from Barack Obama. Here’s the transcript of a recent speech, courtesy of the Caucus Blog:
“I think that is a position which is not consistent with the fact,” Mr. Romney said. “Actually, just look at what Osam — uh — Barack Obama, said just yesterday. Barack Obama calling on radicals, jihadists of all different types, to come together in Iraq. That is the battlefield. That is the central place, he said. Come join us under one banner.”
Yes, the names do have similar assonance, but if you think for a second that it was real mistake, you don’t quite understand the depths that Mitt Romney is willing to troll in his quest for the presidency.
First off, Republicans have already been messing with Obama’s name. Remember the flack he got for having the middle name Hussein?
The only difference here is that Mitt is so shamlessly—so clumsily—trying to tar Obama for having a Muslim-sounding name. Mitt thinks this will go down well with the xenophobes whose votes he needs to win the primary.
But Mitt’s going to have to do better than that–for example, next time he needs to make sure he doesn’t start off by saying the right name: “Actually, just look at what Osam — uh — Barack Obama, said just yesterday.”