Noonan on the flaws in Obama’s health care reform
Peggy Noonan makes some good points here:
Every big idea that works is marked by simplicity, by clarity. You can understand it when you hear it, and you can explain it to people.
…The president’s health-care plan is not clear, and I mean that not only in the sense of “he hasn’t told us his plan.” I mean it in terms of the voodoo phrases, this gobbledygook, this secret language of government that no one understands”””single payer,” “public option,” “insurance marketplace exchange.” No one understands what this stuff means, nobody normal.
And when normal people don’t know what the words mean, they don’t say to themselves, “I may not understand, but my trusty government surely does, and will treat me and mine with respect.” They think, “I can’t get what these people are talking about. They must be trying to get one past me. So I’ll vote no.
The rest of Noonan’s piece is of the genre of those that give helpful advice to Obama, assuming he can listen, regroup, and scale back his ambitions for health care reform to reflect the reality that the American people aren’t buying what’s on the table right now. This assumes that he is not a committed Leftist ideologue, but a reasonable realist. I have my doubts about that one.
I also think that Obama’s lack of clarity on health care reform—which Noonan correctly points out—is neither an error nor an oversight. My hunch is that it’s intentional, and Obama is aware that what he wants in terms of reform goes against the wishes of the majority of Americans. Therefore he is purposely vague and purposely obfuscating, as well as (at times) purposely deceptive and purposely contradictory.
Obama may regroup and pull back. But only if he is convinced that the health care reform bill as presently constructed—and the public option in particular—is completely and utterly dead in the water. He may then try to craft a policy that is designed to reassure the people while sneaking in the public option eventually, through the logical (and in this case intended) consequences of a new bill.
If not, and if some sort of health care reform passes that is truly bipartisan and truly an improvement, and yet allows the individual freedom of choice in insurance (including a robust private option) and keeps government hands largely off health care decisions, as well as reducing costs, then I’ll be exceedingly pleased—although exceedingly surprised.
Exactly. I have a friend who deeply wants universal health care who is irate that Obama won’t just let everyone sign on to Medicare. Simple (but expensive). I keep telling him that’s not accidental. They don’t want it to be simple.
I’ve wondered about your friend’s idea, AVI — what if Obama had simply come out and spoken to the American people and said, “Listen, we need to get help to uninsured people and there’s no cheap way to do it. I am just going to have to ask all of you to reach a little deeper into your pockets so we can afford to get more people onto Medicare. Once we’ve got that accomplished, we’ll figure out the next step. I wish I didn’t have to ask for this, but I think this is a moral imperative and so I am.” Just kept it simple and heartfelt and pointed right at helping the uninsured — the people that most Americans, conservative or liberal, really are worried about. Not that I necessarily like the remedy, but I think he might have been able to pull it off. As you say, though, keeping it simple is exactly what he didn’t want to do.
I’ll be glad when the Peggy Noonan/David Brooks/Kathleen Parker elitist types who joined the Obama train quit giving Obama advice (as if he ever really cared what they thought). The day they swallow their pride, admit error and quit qualifying their criticism with friendly advice is a day I look forward to.
I second that RPF. I could care less what the Noonans, the Brooks, the Parkers, the Althouses, and others like them think. I will have zero interest in the evolution of their thinking until if and when they are free from their essential confusion. Even then I’m not sure if I could ever again take them seriously. Each demonstrated a fundamental lack of good sense and judgment when they sided up to Obama based on weak justifications and observations. It’s time for them to own up to that completely – with simplicity.
The problem with any type of Obama/Pelosi/Reid wants to get passed will (1) most definitely explode the deficit and (2) definitely erode the type and quality of care that most Americans will get. The situation is a lose/lose for the administration and whoever votes for it.
No matter how conciliatory he comes off, you CANNOT get around these two fundamental problems with the reform they are pushing. If they had half a brain, they’d blame the Republicans for obstructing reform and run for the hills and pray to god the economy recovers.
Friends, the chattering class of pundits who supported Obama will never admit their error. They know that once they enter the confessional and speak ” forgive me Father, for I have sinned”, that their penance would be too great.
JohnC,
I do excuse Althouse, though I do understand why one may decide not to. I exclude her for 3 reasons…
1) she is a Democrat
2) by comparison she has been more respectful of Palin and more admitting in her error voting for Obama.
3) She has been declared a conservative by others and has never to my knowledge declared herself to speak for conservatives.
The elitist Republicans are embarrassed by the unwashed (rank and file working class conservatives) yet they speak in the name of Reagan, for this I hold them in contempt
Thanks for the clarity about Althouse RPF. I’ll think about your good evidence and her.
Lucius,
I agree and ironically like the man they supported, Barak Obama, they appear too arrogant to admit error.
Another chapter in “As the Obama Turns”:
Will Obama realize that he is jeopardizing his presidency by continuing to lie and cheat for his true, but illicit love of leftist ideology? Will moderate and independent American voters realize that Barack is cheating on them?
Has Hillary miscalculated the benefits of accepting the position of Secretary of State while being shunted aside in the crush of czars and being exiled to Africa? Or is she playing a shrewd waiting game, knowing that Obama will be soon exposed as an incompetent, unfaithful ideologue allowing her to swoop in from the wings to save the day?
How much longer will America’s enemies continue to test Obama’s weakness before making some large strike somewhere in the world?
Tune in next week to “As the Obama Turns!”
“Therefore he is purposely vague and purposely obfuscating, as well as (at times) purposely deceptive and purposely contradictory.”
You mean everything he did during the campaign?
Amen to your 4:36 and 5:24 P.M. posts, RPF, as well as others.
The fairness doctrine will rise up again. And don’t forget card check. That’s a biggie. Imagine the bullying that can occur. Lots of union people still. And we know how they vote, regardless of who is running.
That’s what concerns me about Ford (quality), as I have said before. The majority of their employees now are actually the competition. Ford needs to be able to hire non-union employees with no dog in the hunt, no reason to see Ford fail, no reason to steal secrets.
Here’s something for you, Huxley.
Link
One of the best pieces I’ve read opposing Obamacare is the one penned by John Makey, CEO of Whole Foods, in a recent WSJ. The man knows what he’s talking about and has been pioneering in employeeshealth savings accounts among other things. Nevertheless, because of his conservative and well-informed stand, some liberals are now planning to boycott WFM. It will only make me support them more than what little I now do anyway.
NickSE Says:
Amen. And just a contemporaneous update re:[1], the WH has just announced that we need to add another $2 trillion to the accumulated deficit/debt over the next 10 years, now making the estimate $9 trillion instead of $7 trillion.
The fact of the release of this worsening of the projected deficits at this particular time makes me think the Obama Adm. is trying to deep six the Public/Government Option all by itself, so that Obama, enc., can back out of it with some cover.
But if so, how this will play, especially with the Progresssive Infants, remains to be seen. Hopefully we can just get the popcorn ready without also having to excessively “gird our own loins”.
Thanks, kcom! I wonder what the context was for that “As the [O brand] turns” bumper sticker.
J. Peden: I believe this budget announcement is the one that was postponed last month, back in those halcyon days when Obama and the Democrats believed that they could rush Obamacare through before the August recess.
Yep, those budget numbers would have sunk Obamacare for sure a month ago, but even so their plans went awry
My impression is that the Obama team has become incoherent with all the setbacks and pushbacks they are experiencing. Hence, these bizarre changes in tone (“partners with God”?) and finger-pointings.
I’d add to neo’s observation that “Obama’s lack of clarity on health care reform–which Noonan correctly points out–is neither an error nor an oversight.” I’m sure that there are strategic reasons that Obama leaves so much of the implementation to Congress, but much of it I believe is simply temperament.
Obama is a Big Picture Guy — Mr. Vision. He has never had any patience or aptitude for the fiddly business of thinking something out in detail, then following through with execution.
Like many who commented above, I have little use for those who didn’t see Obama for what he is, well before the election. Noonan in particular points up the problem when she says of the proposed health-care insurance system revamp: No one understands what this stuff means, nobody normal. Thank you, Peggy for proving my point. She couldn’t be bothered to do her research before the election, and apparently she can’t be bothered to learn about this, either. Which is why she’ll probably make another stupid mistake and then whine about it.
Why yes, I do speak insurance. I’m among the one American in six whose living will be drastically affected by this matter. As opposed to the what? one thousand? pundits in America who can get paid to write about something without learning about it first. Why do you ask?
How bloody condescending can you get? As far as I can tell, most people who are opposed to the government takeover of healthcare (not “reform”) understand all too well what it means.
And I’ll restate my opinion that any “bipartisan” “compromise” legislation coming out of this Congress will be worse than what we already have. Of course, that will “require” further government intervention in the future.
rickl: I don’t see the statement as especially condescending. I see it as a testament to people’s good sense.
After all, no one “understands” what Obamacare really represents, or how it would play out—at least, not exactly. That’s what Obama is counting on—but he’s also counting on people to trust him. I think it’s wise to not trust this bill, and realistic to say that people (and that includes Obama, and Pelosi, and most of wee-weeing Washington) don’t understand it.
Neo: I was really taken aback by that paragraph. It reeked of condescension to me.
I admit that I didn’t read her whole article, though, just the quotes in your post.
I’m not especially concerned with the minutia of 1000+ pages of legislation. So in that sense I don’t “understand” the bill. But I definitely understand the intended end result, which is single-payer universal government-run healthcare. It matters little the exact path we take to get there.
Peggy, you dopey old bat, Obama doesn’t give a shit about what you write.
Only Republicans are stupid enough to take advice from the opposition….
Noonan did nothing to keep this man from getting elected. In fact she actually helped him get elected. She trashed Bush, and Republicans in general…and now all of a sudden she is talking about Obama’s “lack of clarity”.
What a tool.
“The fact of the release of this worsening of the projected deficits at this particular time makes me think the Obama Adm. is trying to deep six the Public/Government Option all by itself, so that Obama, enc., can back out of it with some cover.”
Actually the Democrats are seriously talking about forcing passage, in some form, without the Republicans participation. At the very least they’re in the process of opening the irrevocable floodgates for a later consolidation of their ultimate left-wing goals. 9 trillion dollars? When you consider the long-term ramifications and realities of maintaining this kind of ponzi scheme, it becomes clear that this is no less than deliberate financial sabatoge setting the stage for justification of later (Democrat) party/government “intervention”, up to and including martial law; And the “cap and trade” coup de grace has yet to be added. Factor in “Americorp” as a potential, if not probable, domestic security arm, under the domicile of the independent and elite party “czars” that the administration has connived, along with a now complicit judiciary and main-stream media, with even the inclusion of Acorn as a now legitimized and significant government contractor operative… thus we have the recipe for what has now become no less than a coup de tat by the forces of the far radical left. The speed with which this debacle has taken place is truly breathtaking. It should be a personal issue for everyone now, starting with health-care…
Actually, I made that just for you, Huxley. A few minutes on Photoshop, with your inspiration.
Pingback:Saturday Linkzilla! « The Daley Gator
Actually, I made that just for you, Huxley. A few minutes on Photoshop, with your inspiration.
kcom: I’m touched! Thanks for your deft Photoshop skill.
If they had half a brain, they’d blame the Republicans for obstructing reform and run for the hills and pray to god the economy recovers.
It looks to me that is kind of what they are doing. I’ve read that whatever real economic stimulus that was in the Stimulus Package was designed to have its effect just before the next Congressional election. If the economy even LOOKS like its recovering we’ll be hearing, “It’s the economy, stupid.” It if doesn’t look good, news about the economy will be muted as much as it can be in the MSM. We’ll be hearing happy talk from the MSM and the Whitehouse.
Obama is good at the blame game, has been blaming Bush all along and now he has started blaming the Repubs for the intense healthcare debate and lack of the public’s acceptance — it’s a conspiracy now.
I have also heard that the Dems intend to hold immigration reform hearings just before the election. They want to bleed more Latino votes.
Oh, they have plans, never think they don’t.
I do excuse Althouse, though I do understand why one may decide not to. I exclude her for 3 reasons…
1) she is a Democrat
I was so astounded by this piece of info that I looked her up on Wiki and found out that indeed, yes, she IS a lifelong Democrat. I frequented her blog for years assuming she was a just right of center conservative. Why, I even wrote a negative comment when she seemed to agree too much with a liberal on a Bloggingheads appearance. It was while watching that Bloggingheads video I first learned she voted for Obama. Now, of course, it all makes sense.
I wonder how many of her loyal readers realize Ann is a closet Dem. I mean she NEVER breaths a word about her political party affiliation. Come to think of it, she has always played it noncommittal with her political posts.
She will, of course, vote for Obama in the next Presidential election. Ideology always trumps commonsense.
I’m afraid now to look up Megan McArdle, my latest enthusiasm, on Wiki for fear I’ll find out she belongs to the Communist Party, or something.
grackle,
You said the following
She will, of course, vote for Obama in the next Presidential election. Ideology always trumps commonsense.
I am a Democrat and like Ann I also voted for Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2009, (yes Ann voted Bush in 2004) I believe she may have also voted for other Republicans ss I have. I seriously doubt she will vote for Obama next time and would bet money on it.
Ideology does not trump common sense as you say, I believe it is usually Party prejudice that trumps ideology, this is why some people will only accept some things only if the Party they are affiliated Party implements it.