Jonathan Chait of TNR on the health care bill:

[damonm]

full article at http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/just-noise

American liberals have a habit of withdrawing into cynicism and ennui at the most inopportune moments. The 2000 presidential election, and subsequent recount, was one such moment. The most die-hard reaches of the left, deeming the Democratic Party hopelessly corrupt, rallied to Ralph Nader’s fulsome populist denunciation of Al Gore’s subservience to the corporate agenda. Among more moderate quarters, an attitude of wry detachment prevailed. (“G.O.P.-lite, Democrat-lite,” sighed Frank Rich, “For the 95 percent of the country unwilling to go for Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan, that is the choice, it always has been the choice, and it will still be the choice on Nov. 7.”) Those liberals who did see something large at stake took on an almost apologetic tone, conceding the lack of any inspired positive choice and focusing instead on the dangers of Bush.

(snip)

The denouement of the health care debate has brought about a similar moment in the political culture. The opponents of the bill are full of passionate intensity. The right, of course, is subsumed in rage and paranoia. Conservatives have been joined by fiery liberals like Howard Dean and a slew of left-wing blogs, denouncing the bill as a corporate giveaway and urging its defeat. The attitude closer to the center is more resignation and disappointment. (Frank Rich again: “Though the American left and right don’t agree on much, they are both now coalescing around the suspicion that Obama’s brilliant presidential campaign was as hollow as Tiger ’s public image.”) The endorsements invariably have a defensive tone—the bill “has some imperfections but is worthy of support,” concludes a New York Times editorial.

At some level, it is possible to understand the roots of liberal frustration. The machinery of Congress has ground away at the health care bill, as it does to almost any bill. But at a broader level, the liberal mood is insane. (emphasis from poster) What has emerged from that machinery is not merely “better than nothing” or “a good start.” It is the most significant American legislative triumph in at least four decades. Why can so few people see that?

(snip)

The sum total effect of this legislation is fairly simple. It would redirect a large chunk of the money sloshing around the health care system away from ineffective treatments and toward providing care for the uninsured. On top of that, it would prod the system, in dozens of ways large and small, to adopt cutting edge methods. It is not the kind of plan liberals would create if they could design it from scratch. Rather, it is a centrist compromise of the best variety, combining the ideas of the now nearly-extinct moderate wing of the Republican Party with the smartest bipartisan technocratic reforms.

[sendero]

1. Worth reading..

.... this article was clearly written by someone with a pretty good grasp of what this reform bill is trying to achieve. He makes some good points.

"Second of all, most of us normally accept private profit accompanying public services. Liberals don’t call programs to reduce class size a “teacher’s union bailout.” (Nor do conservatives call Pentagon increases a “defense contractor’s bailout.” If you support the the policy being provided, nobody objects to somebody making a buck providing it.) Insurers may be getting a lot of new customers, but that comes with the trade-off of a lot of unwanted regulation. There is more at work in the progressive revolt than an irrational attachment to the public plan or an executive distrust of private industry. The bizarre convergence of left-wing and right-wing paranoia echoes the forces that brought down the moderate consensus of the postwar era. The GOP retreat into Palinism represents one half of this collapse. The left’s revolt against health care reform represents the other."

On this, I just have to disagree. My problem is not that the private insurance companies are involved. My problems are twofold:

1) These companies have shown themselves to be less than honest as a whole. They pay whatever they want to pay and they give you the runaround if they don't want to pay. You have to really learn how to deal with these folks if you have serious ongoing medical problems. For example, we're expected to believe that pre-existing conditions won't prevent you from getting insurance. Really? I don't believe it for a second. The will say "sure you can have insurance, that will be $10,000 per month". Or they will find some other way to keep you out. You can count on it.

2) The overhead, the amount of each dollar that the insurance companies siphon out of the system isn't just high, it is insane. (Oft cited figures are 3% overhead for Medicare, 25-27% for private insurance). Letting a private company do this is fine, but only if their overhead is reasonable. It is not.

So, I find this guy's argument here lacking. The public option was going to be our stick against these absurd costs. Now it is gone. So now we have mandates, and no public option. The worst of both worlds. Yippee.

[mcablue]

2. Flashback: Johnathan Chait makes the "liberal case" for the Iraq war

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-856744/The-unconvincing-case-for-war.html

More liberal-bashing brought to you by clueless centrists who pretend to be more Serious that we batshit crazy lefties.

Recommended reading, "The New Republic syndrome." "http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/23/tnr/index.html

We fake outrage when Grover Norquist supports a good cause, bringing up his bad past. But we play dumb about Johnathan Chait's when he makes us feel good.