One of the main writers of the 'Obamacare' legislation is on tape explaining that promoting/using a lack of transparency and voter stupidity were critical in getting the law passed.
Must be nice for the Americans to know that Uncle Sam knows best for all of them and that even if he has to deceive them to get their approval he'll ensure his best gets done.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
OK, I've done 10 minutes of research and tried to skip the crazy people to get to the source material. The quote behind this story seems to be...
The whole point of a good healthcare system is that you contribute to it when healthy, and get help when sick. I really don't see the problem with his comments. I'm sure there are various academic papers exploring how to try and convince the general public (of any country) that a certain policy is sustainable and necessary/beneficial - outlets such as Fox news and tabloid newspapers really don't help. It's all quite ovious, and his comments are entirely consistent with politics, media, and how different people and companies try to sway public opinion one way or another."In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass…"
Besides, elected representatives passed the law, not the general public, so in theory they should all have read the bill and made up their own mind, independently of how it was presented to the general public.
The blog you linked to called it a "devastating video." If you look at the video, it's really just general commentary on political sociology in the context of how to design a different (some say better) healthcare system, and would apply regardless of the healthcare law or system he was talking about. Pay in when you can, get help when you need it... Simple.
TL;DR: It's just politics & media.
Last edited by smargh; 11-11-2014 at 09:01 PM.
The problem with his comments has nothing to do with any philosophy or policy of healthcare and has everything to do with the elitist attitude that says "I know what's best and I'm going to do it even if you disagree, don't like it, or don't know what's going on. Even if I have to deceive you I am going to do what's best for you." It's an attitude where democracy is an obstacle rather than the best approximation of an important truth or principle.
What's more, the point isn't that people, or representatives did or didn't read the law, but that it was written in a way designed to mislead, hide or deceive.
Maybe that happens often, but the idea that anyone should be happy with that is highly objectionable and to be rejected.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
His comments are not about elitism or misleading people. He was explaining how complex laws are presented to the public, which is nothing to do with how good or bad a particular policy is. A lot of the general public are stupid, the media need short one-liners, and often the politicians can only explain laws with one or two short sentences to most people. It's how the world works. It's nothing to do with this one specific attempt to change a healthcare system.
I don't think there's anything else I can contribute to this thread. To properly continue a debate, I think we would both need to go and read the full text of the PPAC Act, all 906 pages of itAlternatively, we could leave that job to elected representatives and just rely on soundbites in the meda and partisan blog entries...
</IBTL>
Thats because its not democracy.Originally Posted by Galant
Countries like the UK and the US are not democracies.
We have democratic elections, after which it changes to a bureaucracy, at best, or more accurately a tyrannical majority rule.
In general, the US populace is very self centred when they are losing something, and very vocal and demanding when they stand to gain something.
Not unlike the UK, only were more reserved about it.
I'm with smargh on this one. It may be worded in a way which makes it sound bad, but making difficult choices the general public couldn't sensibly make is the job of politicians at the end of the day.
E.g. if cuts are necessary to sustain an economy (as they quite often are), how many people would volunteer to make those cuts themselves?
If the economy is strong enough to sustain cuts, you're probably not going to be too bothered by them to begin with.
The US doesn't even pretend to be a democracy. It's a constitutional republic.
The healthcare system here is a disaster, and Obamacare has made it worse for almost everyone. But with both parties trying to court the extreme voters, passing something that works would be impossible. Obamacare is a dream system for the right wing, passed by a guy they hate, and a horrifying mess for the left wing, passed by a guy they love. Voter stupidity is the only way this train wreck could happen.
TeePee: may I ask how the Act has made it worse for you & others? I'm genuinely interested. I think I can remember only positive feedback from other forums when I've seen other people talking about their own experiences.
Sounds like most politicians.
However I don't agree that people know what's best for them. Look at California, they had a form of direct democracy and would vote tax cuts for themselves and vote to spend more on health.
People do not know what's best for them, it why we have to trust the people who are specialists in their fields to make decisions for us. I know very little about economics so I do not want to make any decision on how our money is spent - I hate reading daily mail headlines about how much we contribute to the EU because I am sure they haven't printed anything about how much money we make from the EU, it would probably be too complicated for them to explain the true value...
It's best to leave these things to the people who know best.
Going back to original post - that system is how most things are run.
My contribution to my health insurance went up 40% at the beginning of the year, and I was forced to switch to a high deductible plan that was ACA compliant. I'm out of pocket for the first $5000 for any medical treatment I might need. This is typical for most professionals. Healthcare funding under any scheme is about shared risk. The problem with the ACA is the government mandate that we must pay profits to the insurance companies.
People don't know what's good for them - until they do, right?
It might be all well and good whilst you agree with the thinking or policy or law involved, but what happens when this same elitist approach is used for something you disagree with?
There's no recall, no argument here. You can't disagree with the line, "You're too stupid to know", and "I know best". Such an approach is potentially dangerous and undercuts the whole principles on which the democratic ideal is built. And democracy matters. It matters a lot. It might be flawed, but as was famously said, it's the worst form of government, apart from all the other ones. What I think people forget is that democracy isn't about achieving the perfect democratic government/system (there is no such thing). It is about building and maintaining a flawed society, from flawed individuals, upon a solid foundation. That foundation is a high regard for the being and rights of humans, and, most importantly, a recognition of the flawed nature of humans. The first principle teaches us that people must be treated well, with respect, and regard for their rights, and that they are equal. The second principle teaches us that instead of all power being placed in the hands of a corrupt few, balance comes when power is shared and comes from all individuals. Essentially, democracy is important not because people are perfect, or even very good but because they're corrupt. It is a matter of maintaining balance.
This might all seem very academic or idealistic but I suggest that that is only because we've enjoyed the privileges of democracy for so long. Head over to any other place or time where ruling authority came via bloodline, social status, physical or military strength etc. and the importance of these hard-learned and hard-fought-for principles becomes clear.
People may not always make the right choices but it is always their right to choose. A representative democracy (of which American and the UK are two examples) exists as a practical balance between the equal rights and status of all people to govern themselves, and the impracticality of large societies voting on every little thing. Nevertheless, elected representatives are still to be representative - in the words of Lincoln - "a government of the people, by the people, for the people." That is to say that it is the people, all people, where authority for governance lies, and governments are formed by the people in order to serve the people. And "representative" here does not mean that all views and wishes of any group must be reflected or espoused - that's impossible. Rather, the term 'representative' is larger than that. It speaks of the vital connection of any elected official to the people of society ("of, by, for") and makes them a servant of and answerable to the people.
When this is understood any notion of deceiving the people (even if an official feels it is in the people's best interests / 'ends justify the means') is incongruous with their being representative of/by/for. That is, one cannot truly, wholly, be a representative of the people when one holds them in disdain and disregard and even contempt - because you cannot cut down the authority of the people without also cutting down the authority which gave you your own authority (not, at least, without moving the authority away from the people and onto something else - like your own status, or wisdom or intelligence). No, these are notions more properly belonging to and arising from oligarchy, which almost always results in abuse and tyranny. Elected officials are to stand supported on the shoulders of the people (of the people), not to step on their faces.
Essentially, Gruber's comments reflect and incorrect and potentially abusive view of humanity, and I'm rather surprised so few people here see that - at least as expressed so far. Cynicism towards the democratic ideal, especially the common-or-garden British variety, is understandable, but that's why it's important we understand democracy not as a road to perfection but as a platform of principles upon which imperfection can best be maintained, and off of which lie a good number of horrific alternatives.
Last edited by Galant; 12-11-2014 at 04:52 PM.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
So - invading Iraq, Poll Tax, ID cards, closing the pits. All good because the elected people knew best?
Galant (13-11-2014)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote