ObamaCare, Afghanistan and the question of liberal morality

Breathing a sigh of relief, the President is dusting off his salesman cap. ObamaCare seems to be on the mend. Some problems remain, but Healthcare.gov now appears pretty functional.

Yet the future of the Affordable Care Act is far from certain. As David Freddoso notes, Democrats are going to have a hard time getting past the ‘sticker shock’ that many Americans are experiencing with their new plans. After all, it’s hard to persuade a middle class family that they should be happy paying more for a plan that suits them less. There’s obvious political risk here. If common dissatisfaction becomes the norm, November 2014 isn’t going to be fun for Democrats.

Certainly, liberals are going to have to learn from this experience. They’re going to have to accept that good intentions and good policies are not the same thing.

Ultimately, ObamaCare’s difficulties didn’t flow from unfortunate circumstances; they flowed from the arrogance of self-assumed moral superiority. Consider our political discourse. Where conservatives often deride liberal philosophy as delusional, liberals often regard conservatism as implicitly immoral. Regarding ObamaCare, prominent liberals frequently claim that conservative opposition is racist, or motivated by a hatred for the poor, or just plain stupid, or really, really racist. Indeed, the Washington Post's Ryan Cooper has stated that opposing ObamaCare is ''morally wrong''.

Look, I’d be the first to admit that conservatives need to offer serious alternatives to ObamaCare. Nevertheless, liberals desperately need to buy a mirror.

Just reference the recent liberal record in Afghanistan and Iraq…

Iraq, January 2007. A nation on the verge of implosion. Every day brought new bombings and beheadings. Iranian provided explosives were turning armored Humvees into human grinders. Al Qa’ida was fracturing Iraqi society with a ruthless brutality. Then Bush ordered ‘the surge’. With time, JSOC and ‘The Awakening’, the surge dramatically reduced the bloodshed and created space for basic political reconciliation. Without it, Iraq would have almost certainly descended into an ethno-sectarian holocaust. In other words, a moral abyss. Yet, even when its dividends were becoming clear, liberals fastidiously opposed the surge. Not only that, just as the liberal base now gleefully defends Snowden as a great patriot, during the surge, those same liberal activists were happy to deride Americans soldiers as traitors. Consider the dichotomy of this worldview; celebration of a defection to a mafia state, treason by fifteen months military service in 120 degree heat. 

Opposing the surge, liberals offered two weak alternatives - abandon Iraq or ‘hope for the best’. Terrible human suffering had become an abstraction. At best, an uncomfortable reality to be pushed from the mind.

Then there’s Afghanistan.

The majority of liberals have long believed that Afghanistan is a unworthy cause. Nonetheless, whether embracing an inverted McNamara-esque number count, or an assumed self-righteousness, a far too casual faux morality is in play. We’re witnessing a new national security liberalism; one defined by easy populism and devoid of moral anchor. A paradigm in sad distinction to the leadership of FDR.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that American military deployments are morally simple questions (nor that conservatives are perfect). But liberals must more honestly pay heed to American’s unique role in the world. While the Afghan President might possess the temperament of a five year old, the evidence also shows Afghanistan’s gradual movement towards stability. By calling for policy changes on the basis of the first consideration but ignoring the latter, liberals would greatly empower those who find justice in the hanging of children. I know they don't intend that, but it's exactly what will happen.

Conservatives must learn from the shutdown

Speaker Boehner: ‘’We just didn’t win’’

16 days overdue, thus ends an American take on Monty Python. Without the satire.

The White House has preserved ObamaCare, Democrats have won clean resolutions and the GOP has been humbled into a very public and very bloody retreat.

For Republicans, there are only two positives.

First, with this deal, the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, has probably saved the GOP from being vanquished in next year’s Mid-Terms. Second, McConnell has challenged the President to live up to his word and engage in serious negotiations (my take on 'serious') before next January. In short, McConnell has given CPR to a party drowning in emotion.

For leading the GOP off its Maginot Line, McConnell deserves the gratitude of all conservatives.

Unfortunately, he won’t get it. 

Instead, the very opposite is likely to occur. Conservative firebrands will rage against his ‘betrayal of conservative values’. McConnell’s primary challenger, Matt Bevin, can expect his campaign coffers to brim. After all, for a loud but vocal conservative minority, compromise is treason. A capital crime. 

This insipid absolutism can’t continue. It’s time for us, the majority of conservatives; the ‘quiet conservatives’, to bring reason back to Republican politics.

For a start, we need to recognize what we’re up against - that there are those in our movement who see ‘purity’ as their defining cause. That for these conservatives, politics isn’t about asserting an agenda, it’s about purging the ‘ideologically impure’. We need to recognize that these partisans see themselves as the modern incarnations of John Stark’s heroic toast, - ‘’Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils.’’ That for these men and women, political death is preferable to compromise.

Next, we need to point out the fallacy of their argument.

Let’s cut the faux patriotism, ObamaCare is not the British Army and this isn’t the Revolutionary War. In their struggle, Stark and his comrades were fighting for an ideal that was both pure and possible – freedom and independence.

Neither was true with regards to the GOP strategy on ObamaCare. As I argued earlier this week, demanding that Obama sacrifice his landmark law was always implausible. Democrats control the Senate and the Executive. The Judiciary has rendered its decision- the law conforms with the Constitution. The polls were also clear- Americans might dislike ObamaCare, but they disliked the GOP’s brinkmanship even more. On top of it all, Obama had a post-Syria necessity to project clear leadership.

Unsurprisingly, the news coverage has reflected this understanding. Instead of focusing on the absurd incompetence of the ObamaCare rollout, the media set up camp on a different story – one centered in a Republican celebration of rudderless obstructionism. A political opposition marching in perfect step with Democratic propaganda. A modern tea party… without the tea.

For conservatives, this strategic delusion speaks to our burgeoning fetish - self-immolation at the shrine of partisan resistance.

Over the last two weeks, the House GOP has rendered itself the governing equivalent of a skydiving team without parachutes- for two minutes, soaring ecstasy as the jumpers sail through the clouds. Until terminal velocity meets certain gravity. Then truth renders its judgment – the illusion of omnipotence at an awful price. Self-destruction is the nemesis of political reason.

If we’re serious about preventing an American welfare state, we conservatives need to get serious.

We need to grasp the virtuous truth- that Political leadership demands both courage and rationality. That in a democracy, believing alone isn’t enough. In the end as with all arguments, political success requires presenting a case, persuading voters and pursuing change.

The alternative is what we’ve seen today. A gleeful Democratic party, a preaching President and a Republican brand that’s bobbing in the sewer.

Please watch video below for my thoughts on broader issues involved.

Shutdown, ObamaCare and what it all means

Interviewed by AJ Delgado (video below), I offer my thoughts on the shutdown, ObamaCare and the broader ideological disagreements sustaining the discord.

3 arguments against the GOP's ObamaCare strategy

Following on from yesterday's post, here are my thoughts on why the new GOP strategy on ObamaCare doesn't make sense.

1) It forces the GOP into a political corner. The President is never going to relinquish his keystone political achievement (failure?). He just isn't. Additionally, after Syria, the White House will be desperate for an opportunity to burnish the President's resolve credentials. 

Let's be clear, this GOP strategy provides that opportunity on a silver platter. 

Finally, with the midterms next year (see also), this fight will allow Democrats to galvanize their liberal base in the best way - in an emotive battle that they're almost certain to win.

2) By tying ObamaCare's demise to the survival of all other spending, the GOP won't simply play to Democratic propaganda (which paints the GOP as a bastion of intransigent ideologues), they'll also de-legitimize conservative standing on the broader issue of spending/debt. If conservatives believe that spending reforms are the key national priority (I certainly do), this strategy must be considered as fundamentally illogical. 

It will afford Democrats the political cover they need to avoid negotiations on critical concerns.

3) It fails to address the key problem with the GOP's health care policy. The party (rightly) opposes the President's law, but it fails to offer an alternative (here's mine). In turn, as was the case with immigration reform, the GOP allows Democrats to take ownership of the issue.

           Conservatives risk becoming the policy equivalent of Code Pink- shouting and generating some fleeting attention/sympathy but then, inevitably, being escorted from the metaphorical room. If we were sensible, we'd instead present our own proposals and then wait for Obamacare to implode.

Ultimately, this strategy's defining weakness is rooted in its false understanding of popular antipathy towards ObamaCare. Yes, many Americans are unhappy with the looming law. Yes, the law is likely to be a disaster. Nevertheless, just as Americans were opposed to an intervention in Syria for which they could see no justification (although IMO intervention was justified!), so too will they oppose a political battle that damages other interests without apparent purpose. In the end, Americans want results.

This strategy may well become the Republican opposite to the President's debacle on Syria.

Unhealthy logic - 3 conservative misconceptions regarding health care

Some domestic policy...

The GOP appears to have finalized its strategy to shut down ObamaCare. I'll comment on this plan in due course. 

In the interim, here are three thoughts on the anti-competitive character of America's health care system. Please note - I'm not writing this piece in defense of ObamaCare (which I believe will be a disaster), but rather as a challenge to those conservatives who insinuate that our current medical system is fit for purpose.

1) The Health Care Marketplace is fundamentally dysfunctional. 

For almost every treatment - from a scan to surgery, health care is far more expensive in America than in other western nations. In large part, this discrepancy is the consequence of absent consumer knowledge. More specifically, most Americans don't have a clue as to what a particular treatment should cost. In turn, this knowledge gap allows different hospitals to charge absurdly variable prices for the same procedures.

          This dynamic enables monopoly providers (see below) and it encourages an over-saturation of specialists. The marketplace dysfunction is topped off by the AMA's unscrutinized power to set treatment-value points.

2) Excessive Barriers to Entry

To practice in the US, a foreign trained doctor must navigate a bureaucratic minefield of epic proportions. This minefield obstructs the flow of otherwise available human capital. In shielding the US medical training industry from competition, it's also deeply counter-productive. Across America, there's a great need for rural doctors - foreign practitioners could fill these coverage gaps.

            Regrettably, our current health care system disincentivizes the very essence of good medical care - reliable access to affordable and effective care. At a further level, Doctor shortages contribute to local monopolies - forcing patients to pay excessive prices or travel excessive distances for alternate treatment. This is outrageous. The Federal Trade Commission should investigate the AMA for its evident restraint of trade.

3) Absent Personal Responsibility

With many Americans receiving their health care coverage from employer based plans, cost burdens are shifted onto society instead of individuals. As a result, there's little incentive for personal responsibility/cost awareness*. Until individuals are made to bear scrutiny to the health care choices that they make, health care costs will continue to grow.

           As I've argued before, conservatives must present a serious alternative to the looming debacle of ObamaCare.  Yet, we also need to re-consider whether our current health care system is as great as some of us assume.

*Albeit in an unintentional way, ObamaCare's corporate/personal mandates may actually help bring down health care costs over the long term. As companies offer grants instead of fixed insurance (to avoid carrying the weight of health care inflation), individuals will have to shop around more - eventually leading to greater consumer pressure for more affordable options.

Obamacare

I am currently working at Wimbledon so won't be posting for the next few days. However, I wanted to draw a note on the Obamacare decision. I agree with the court's judgement. As John Roberts noted, "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." I believe that Obamacare is a bad law that will fail to address the key problems facing Americans and our health care. Resolving this failure is a matter for the Congress. 

I have always been a big fan of John Roberts. I believe that he is an exceptionally strong jurist. Fair minded, logical and independent of political persuasion. He was a great appointment by President Bush.

Obamacare Constitutional?

The Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of Obama's new health care law. In my opinion, the President's health care law is a bad law. I do not believe that it will reduce America's absurd annual inflation in health care costs and it imposes new financial concerns onto already struggling businesses. HOWEVER, I do believe that the law is constitutional. Health Care in America accounts for around 18% of the US economy. With increased personal mobility in the 21st century, individuals increasingly seek health care in different states and rely upon health care services/companies that are based in different states. Case law suggests that the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce if there is a rational basis for that regulation. If an individual does not buy health insurance, he risks imposing costs on society at a later date (in the case of requiring expensive medical services in the future and being unable to afford those services). Nearly everyone will require health care services at some point in their lives.

Interpretation of the law requires analysis of the Constitution/case law applied to facts. Personal political ideology should be irrelevant. As such, in my opinion, requiring Americans to buy insurance falls under the orbit of Congressional authority to regulate the health care industry. 

At a political level, I believe that Obamacare should be repealed and replaced with reforms to cut health care cost inflation while improving coverage.