Advice to President Obama

[fpb]

So far, you have been brilliant at splitting potential opponents, sir, and I do not understand why you seem to have surrendered this tactic and gone for its opposite when it comes to by far the most important item of your legislative program. Your health reform proposals have fearsome and committed enemies. Why multiply them by insisting on placing abortion among the basic provisions, and allowing your party to shoot down any amendment that would prevent or even limit this? The opposition to abortion in America is formidable, but it only partly overlaps the ideological (and provincial) opposition to socialized medicine. You are shooting yourself in the foot, running the risk of a humiliating and crippling defeat, and strengthening and enlarging the front of your opponents, by this ill-advised behaviour.

Comments

My 2 cents

[affablestranger.livejournal.com]

Part of the problem, and there are several, is that the bill isn't Obama's. It's Congress', specifically belonging to congressional Democrats, who, like the Republicans, aren't known for their... legislative restraint. It doesn't help that the president owes a great many favors to many in the House and Senate. And then there are the special interest groups and lobbyists to whom he has somehow, either recently or in the past, wound up owing favors as well. And this health insurance bill is their payoff. And as you and I well know, abortion rights figures promintently in many of the president's allies' and cohorts' view of How The World Should Be.

Re: My 2 cents

[redcoast.livejournal.com]

Congress has a lot of people on the extremes of political views, which is actually okay with me. They represent America too. But weird things can happen to bills in congress.

Re: My 2 cents

[mentalguy.livejournal.com]

One thought I have in this regard, which I would appreciate some international perspective on, is that part of the issue in the US is the extent to which legislators will vote on legislation without reading it, as a general thing. It seems to encourage large, poorly-focused, and often incomprehensible legislation. Is this kind of thing common elsewhere?

Re: My 2 cents

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The size of American bills do seem to be something outlandish, although we have recently had similar situations with the immense European treaties of Maastricht and Lisbon, which most chambers passed without much discussion. However, these are mostly a condensation of individual measures taken earlier and already in place.

Re: My 2 cents

[mentalguy.livejournal.com]

Also, what are your thoughts on efforts like this one?

Re: My 2 cents

[fpb.livejournal.com]

At first glance, it sounds like an eminently sensible proposal.

[redcoast.livejournal.com]

That's a good question! But that's not Obama's doing. That's just Democrats for you.

The cost of abortions isn't really an issue over here anyway.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Well, the question still applies. One would imagine that the members of a party that take up a certain legislative program would want that legislation to succeed, so why are the Democrats acting in a way that is certain to increase resistance to their proposals?

[redcoast.livejournal.com]

Because A) it's Congress, and B) it's Democrats. Congressional Democrats aren't exactly geniuses.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I suppose so. But I really want to see an American national health service, and I really want to see the opposition defeated on this issue. And I cannot even support the proposals myself if they insist on using them as a Trojan horse for abortion; quite apart from the folly of confirming every negative stereotype that the opposition is trying to spread about national health care.

[redcoast.livejournal.com]

I've been thinking that the hysteria of the opposition of this bill will do them harm. Like Glenn Beck's freakout, the comment about Stephen Hawking.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Possibly. But I wonder how many people in the USA will take seriously even the widespread anger that those remarks caused in Britain. The whole sequence of events strikes me as a kind of declaration of independence of the American right from planet Earth. If you read conservative blogs and news agencies, you will find that they barely notice there is a problem.

[redcoast.livejournal.com]

After doing some research I don't believe the bill is going to fund abortions after all.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Beware of smooth arguments. The Catholic Bishops, who favour the reform, nevertheless don't agree with you.

[redcoast.livejournal.com]

Why would I care?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The issue is whether or not the Democrats are trying to use the bill as a Troyan horse for abortion - not whether you should care. Sorry and all, but this is not about your opinions, or even mine.

[redcoast.livejournal.com]

Well, again - why would I care what Catholic Bishops think about the bill? They're not legal experts, medical experts, or even experts on abortion.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

You'd be surprised.

[redcoast.livejournal.com]

No doubt they are a very intelligent group of people, but that does not make them experts in subjects outside of their field.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that this thread has taken a rather sterile direction. We might as well stop here. It is late in London and I would rather go to sleep.

[redcoast.livejournal.com]

Cheerio! See you tomorrow.

[becomethesea.livejournal.com]

HEAR HEAR

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I would have thought a libertarian like you would have no time for national health provision?

[becomethesea.livejournal.com]

For clarity, I actually consider myself part of the 'libertarian left' as a general rule. I am generally in favour of both civil liberties for everyone and state programs for those that need assistance. The state will always exist regardless of what my anarcho-capitalist friends believe, and I think that is essential when considering at least somewhat 'realistic' politics.

I haven't been able to closely follow the national health issue, but I really think it ought to be implemented. I watched my own mother struggle (and, eventually get denied again and again) for the hysterectomy operation that saved her life. Unfortunately we had to play the credit card/bankruptcy game for her to have the operation, but she is happier in monetary debt and alive than either still suffering or dead.

I realize the greedy monopoly that exists within the confines of many private health insurance companies, and it enrages me, being a person who holds some fairly 'radical' perspectives on the way medicine and society would ideally co-exist. I don't necessarily think that a state-run option would be much different in the rate of its denial of claims, but I do believe it would at least have the individual's monetary status in mind when the decision is made. There is no real financial gain in denying a state-based claim, since its funding ideally comes from the people themselves.

[becomethesea.livejournal.com]

I'm also compelled to add that though I hold a more liberal view on the overall performance of abortions within society, I am NOT okay with tacking that procedure onto the national health proposal. I agree that it undermines Pres. Obama's ability to get the program going. I do not want the state (aka my tax dollars) to pay for abortions. I've thought, always, that those operations ought to remain private both personally and financially, being the absolute burden of both the doctors and patients that participate in it.