Thought-Factory.net Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion philosophy.com Junk for code
parliament house.gif
RECENT ENTRIES
SEARCH
ARCHIVES
Commentary
Media
Think Tanks
Oz Blogs
Economic Blogs
Foreign Policy Blogs
International Blogs
Media Blogs
South Australian Weblogs
Economic Resources
Environment Links
Political Resources
Cartoons
South Australian Links
Other
www.thought-factory.net
"...public opinion deserves to be respected as well as despised" G.W.F. Hegel, 'Philosophy of Right'

backlash against Obama « Previous | |Next »
August 23, 2009

In his Obama’s Trust Problem in The New York Times Paul Krugman refers to news reports that the Obama administration — which seems to be backing away from the “public option” for health insurance — is shocked and surprised at the furious reaction from progressives. Krugman adds:

A backlash in the progressive base — which pushed President Obama over the top in the Democratic primary and played a major role in his general election victory — has been building for months. The fight over the public option involves real policy substance, but it’s also a proxy for broader questions about the president’s priorities and overall approach.

Progressives are now in revolt. Obama took their trust for granted, and in the process lost it. And now he needs to win it back. Krugman's argument here is similar to what is happening in Australia. There the Rudd Government is losing the trust of progressives due to its very watered down climate change policy, priorities and overall approach to energy.

Krugman's argument is part of an ongoing debate in the US about the politics of health care. "Change" is what Obama stood for. "We can do it" Change sure was needed in health care.

Glenn Greenward says that:

The central pledges of the Obama campaign were less about specific policy positions and much more about changing the way Washington works -- to liberate political outcomes from the dictates of corporate interests; to ensure vast new levels of transparency in government; to separate our national security and terrorism approaches from the politics of fear. With some mild exceptions, those have been repeatedly violated. Negotiating his health care reform plan in total secrecy and converting it into a gigantic gift to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries -- which is exactly what a plan with (1) mandates, (2) no public option and (3) a ban on bulk negotiations for drug prices would be -- would constitute yet another core violation of those commitments, yet another bolstering (a major one) of the very power dynamic he vowed to subvert.

Obama does need to toughen up given that the standard practice of the private medical insurance companies in the US is to kick people off their coverage when they get sick; to deny coverage to people who have previously been sick; to hide lifetime limits in the fine print, force people into bankruptcy if they face a serious illness; and to discriminate against pregnant women and their families. Their strategy is to squeeze every dollar they can out of patients in the current system, up until the last possible day they can.

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 2:10 PM | | Comments (13)
Comments

Comments

Gary

Rudd quite pointedly never courted the Luvvies in Australia. In fact both he and Gillard have most explicitly ignored them or dismissed them contemptuously. So there is absolutely no comparison with the US. Nevertheless, just as The Luvvies copied the Yanks by importing the phrase "Culture Wars" in the mid 1990s, now they will try and Obamahise Australian polital discourse.


Sigh.

John,
I didn't know that Obama's health reforms are all about the luvvies. How so?

But (gulp) JG is right...

Rudd won by just NOT being John Winston Howard. The little rodent's zombie-walk to the right left his "aspirationals" feeling afraid and abandoned.

Our Kevin was sufficiently (barely) NOT being JWH -enough, to pick up the neglected voters.

It was expected that the lefties would fall in line. As usual.

Gary

About as much relevance as Obama's health reforms have to do with Kevin Rudd or his supporters.

mars

I hardly think they were feeling "afraid and abandoned". You clearly do not know them. I do. I can assure you they were confident and decisive. Howard had suited them very well until 2005. Chins up, chests out, they said, "sorry mate, you blew it" and promptly voted Labor.


Listen to me when I warn you not to underestimate the Australian working class.

As for The Luvvies, well, they're just Useful Idiots. As you yourself admit.

Depends what a luvvie is, Mars. Rudd made a point of introducing himself to the Not Sunrise Watching But Monthly Reading set. He's waffled about the brutality of neoliberalism. He held the 2020 thing. Told us climate change is the great moral challenge of our times. I don't think much of that was aimed at the aspirationals.

I have lived in the US and one of my best mates is a Wall Street investment banker MD in healthcare. The picture of US healthcare we get here in Australia is worse than a cartoon. Having said that, it is also a dog’s breakfast. And the way existing non-US national single payer systems are being presented in by US opponents is a fricking disgrace.

The sum of all the transaction costs plus the anxiety to negotiate the byzantine distribution channels is huge. If you were designing a national system from scratch, you would dismiss the US example immediately.

I haven’t lived on the continent, but I have in the UK. The UK NHS is excellent if you get really, really sick, but the GP system is like being a battery hen.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why they don’t all just copy the system we have in Australia. I have only very recently convinced my IB mate that it is superior to the is superior to the US shemozzle.

Actually, I should share two extremely valid points my Healthcare IB mate made in defence of the expense of the US health system.


1. The drug companies take a huge hit on margins when so many of their non-US customers are foreign governments who have massive buying power. So the drug companies recoup the ‘losses’ from their US customers.


2. Most of the hugely expensive R&D is done in the US.


One riposte of mine is they spend more on marketing than R&D. Perhaps if they spent less time inventing non-existing ailments, they wouldn’t whinge so much. ;)

"Listen to me when I warn you not to underestimate the Australian working class."

Oh wait? Someone is trying to tell me about "working class" Australians? I suppose it might depend on how you define that mob... but I reckon I know a few of 'em. More than a few really.

How delightfully "prole" of me!

Same here, Mars.

I live with a garage full of Holden parts, there are steel capped boots piled outside the door, the beer fridge is the busiest part of the house, life gets in the way of televised sport and Medicare is a necessity.

Maybe I'm a working class luvvie?

Oh, and by the way. I cannot STAND Sunrise, either.

John,
It is not an exaggeration to point to the problem experienced by the uninsured, the underinsured, the unemployed and others lower on the income ladder in the US health system. These politically marginalised groups are likely to directly benefit from Obama's bill.

A "working class" luvvie???

Bur such a thing CANNOT exist!

Surely a luvvie is solidly middle-class, has a muddled tertiary education, doesn't get their hands dirty and lives in the big smoke.

So Lyn... about that beer fridge... full of imported ale, yes?

FWIW. I have never lived in the US don't have mates who are Wall Street investment bankers. But I recently met an accountant from Port Macquarie. Nice chap, spent some time in France, I think.

I must be a luvvie Mars. JG says so.

No imported ale, but it is light and it's not VB. Does that count as limp-wristed?