Andy, thank you for writing this. You, Aaron, Berney, Shika, and so many others here as well as Liberal Currents perfectly illustrate what we should do. You all get the big picture IMHO. I would also add that it is long past time to reject and put to rest the conservatism of Buckley, Goldwater, and Reagan as well for the era we are now in
Berny, you are welcome. Keep doing what you are doing. I will admit, about I decade ago, I personally identified as a libertarian through Cato and David Boaz, and Reason magazine. But after the first Trump administration, and seeing how many people from Reason blindly ignored Trump’s abuses, I now see myself as a radical cosmopolitan liberal (hat tip Aaron Ross Powell). Also, it would be nice if you, Shikha, or Andy could write an article showing why the Bucklyite conservatism no longer works.
I notice you didn’t mention the abysmal state of US health care. Is this because to properly deal with it smacks of ‘discredited socialist’ ideas, or because the status quo suits the ideological priors of this piece?
I think that could be addressed in the paragraph beginning:
"Nowhere is the need for reform more urgent than in tackling rent-seeking corruption— the practice of using political influence to secure economic benefits that would not otherwise be available in a competitive market with a level playing field."
If you think market competition would fix the cruel and dysfunctional US health care system you are either a libertarian or know nothing. But I repeat myself.
Or a liberal, properly understood. If you think competition would not help fix the dsyfunctional US health care system, you are a statist and not a liberal. I would favour a model based on Singapore's: Basic medical expenses paid by individuals through mandatory HSAs (which can be supplemented by government to the needy), and the only required insurance for emergencies, hospital stays, and major illness (like cancer). Prices on drugs should be dealt with by patent reform. The length of patents should be cut and the ability for companies to extend them should be curtailed.
Also every American of every political persuasion (save the Communists and Fascists perhaps) have some libertarian threads running through their ideologies. Almost everyone falls somewhere on the libertarian spectrum.
No political ideology can work perfectly as theorized because the world is not a sterile lab where we can run experiments.
No, because I’m not a U.S. citizen. But I lived and worked there 25 years ago. It’s simply shocking to anyone from another advanced capitalist democracy. Simply ineffable. Your health system is a global laughing stock.
I'm not sure what system you're advocating for instead Linda, but the situation is much more complex than what you're describing. The reality is that all of the following are true:
- The quality of doctors and hospitals in the U.S. is far higher than anywhere else in the world.
- Most people in the U.S. have far more access to specialists, and wait less time to see them, than anywhere else.
- If you're sick with a challenging health condition and have decent health insurance, you're better off in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world.
- Most people in the U.S. are happy with their health insurance.
- Through the higher prices they pay, U.S. citizens essentially fund drug development for the entire world.
- The amount of paperwork one has to complete is incredibly frustrating for both doctors and patients.
- The U.S. spends far more on health care than anywhere else.
- U.S. doctors are incredibly overpaid.
- If you don't have decent insurance, health care is incredibly expensive.
- Longevity and health mostly have nothing to do with health care and treating the sick (it's about healhy lifestyles that help you avoid getting sick in the first place), which means that all that money and paperwork doesn't translate into longer life expectancies.
The fact that all of these things are true is what makes improving the health care system so challenging. While there are many things that can and should be done, these changes have the potential of either potentially or definitely negatively affecting folks who are happy with the status quo who are therefore resistant to change.
If you think criticism of the US health system and its amoral defenders is uncivil on this thread, ask the UHC CEO which was worse? Oh, I forgot, you can’t. The next couple of years will be terrible for the vulnerable, but after that, it’s going to be hell on wheels for rich smart arses, especially those that propose more ‘Mr Market’ for people.
David Brooks writes, "Democrats are mistaken if they think they can rebuff Trump by howling the words 'fascism' or 'authoritarianism,' or by clutching their pearls every time he does something vulgar or immoral. If they decide to continue the culture war between the snooty elitists and the masses, I think we know how that’s going to turn out."
Furthermore, a comment on Brooks's article reads: "Trump is not a populist. He is an oligarch dressed as a populist. He is a wealthy guy who wants more wealth and favor by leveraging power."
Hey, Andy, want to make (your "anti-populist" brand of) liberalism seem cool and edgy? Form a rock band, and name it "Nurse Ratched and the Apparatchiks."
On second thought, liberals like Matt Yglesias or Yascha Mounk seem far more persuasive (and accurate) in assessingt our current predicament, and in their suggestions for how to address it.
Step one: Find the party that doesn't use the White House to suppress the speech of those it disagrees with or conduct ridiculous show trials targeting its political foes. Now which one would that be? Hmmm.....
I'm right there with you on the discredited socialist schemes, but can you explain to me why mercantilist schemes and rabidly nativist nationalism are not also discredited?
Andy, thank you for writing this. You, Aaron, Berney, Shika, and so many others here as well as Liberal Currents perfectly illustrate what we should do. You all get the big picture IMHO. I would also add that it is long past time to reject and put to rest the conservatism of Buckley, Goldwater, and Reagan as well for the era we are now in
Thanks, George!
Berny, you are welcome. Keep doing what you are doing. I will admit, about I decade ago, I personally identified as a libertarian through Cato and David Boaz, and Reason magazine. But after the first Trump administration, and seeing how many people from Reason blindly ignored Trump’s abuses, I now see myself as a radical cosmopolitan liberal (hat tip Aaron Ross Powell). Also, it would be nice if you, Shikha, or Andy could write an article showing why the Bucklyite conservatism no longer works.
I notice you didn’t mention the abysmal state of US health care. Is this because to properly deal with it smacks of ‘discredited socialist’ ideas, or because the status quo suits the ideological priors of this piece?
I think that could be addressed in the paragraph beginning:
"Nowhere is the need for reform more urgent than in tackling rent-seeking corruption— the practice of using political influence to secure economic benefits that would not otherwise be available in a competitive market with a level playing field."
If you think market competition would fix the cruel and dysfunctional US health care system you are either a libertarian or know nothing. But I repeat myself.
Or a liberal, properly understood. If you think competition would not help fix the dsyfunctional US health care system, you are a statist and not a liberal. I would favour a model based on Singapore's: Basic medical expenses paid by individuals through mandatory HSAs (which can be supplemented by government to the needy), and the only required insurance for emergencies, hospital stays, and major illness (like cancer). Prices on drugs should be dealt with by patent reform. The length of patents should be cut and the ability for companies to extend them should be curtailed.
I don't disagree but why be so uncivil?
Also every American of every political persuasion (save the Communists and Fascists perhaps) have some libertarian threads running through their ideologies. Almost everyone falls somewhere on the libertarian spectrum.
No political ideology can work perfectly as theorized because the world is not a sterile lab where we can run experiments.
Are you Megan McArdle in disguise?
No, because I’m not a U.S. citizen. But I lived and worked there 25 years ago. It’s simply shocking to anyone from another advanced capitalist democracy. Simply ineffable. Your health system is a global laughing stock.
I'm not sure what system you're advocating for instead Linda, but the situation is much more complex than what you're describing. The reality is that all of the following are true:
- The quality of doctors and hospitals in the U.S. is far higher than anywhere else in the world.
- Most people in the U.S. have far more access to specialists, and wait less time to see them, than anywhere else.
- If you're sick with a challenging health condition and have decent health insurance, you're better off in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world.
- Most people in the U.S. are happy with their health insurance.
- Through the higher prices they pay, U.S. citizens essentially fund drug development for the entire world.
- The amount of paperwork one has to complete is incredibly frustrating for both doctors and patients.
- The U.S. spends far more on health care than anywhere else.
- U.S. doctors are incredibly overpaid.
- If you don't have decent insurance, health care is incredibly expensive.
- Longevity and health mostly have nothing to do with health care and treating the sick (it's about healhy lifestyles that help you avoid getting sick in the first place), which means that all that money and paperwork doesn't translate into longer life expectancies.
The fact that all of these things are true is what makes improving the health care system so challenging. While there are many things that can and should be done, these changes have the potential of either potentially or definitely negatively affecting folks who are happy with the status quo who are therefore resistant to change.
It may be a laughing stock, but it is not the market based system that people make it out to be.
If you think it needs written on have you considered writing about it yourself?
If you think criticism of the US health system and its amoral defenders is uncivil on this thread, ask the UHC CEO which was worse? Oh, I forgot, you can’t. The next couple of years will be terrible for the vulnerable, but after that, it’s going to be hell on wheels for rich smart arses, especially those that propose more ‘Mr Market’ for people.
David Brooks writes, "Democrats are mistaken if they think they can rebuff Trump by howling the words 'fascism' or 'authoritarianism,' or by clutching their pearls every time he does something vulgar or immoral. If they decide to continue the culture war between the snooty elitists and the masses, I think we know how that’s going to turn out."
Furthermore, a comment on Brooks's article reads: "Trump is not a populist. He is an oligarch dressed as a populist. He is a wealthy guy who wants more wealth and favor by leveraging power."
Hey, Andy, want to make (your "anti-populist" brand of) liberalism seem cool and edgy? Form a rock band, and name it "Nurse Ratched and the Apparatchiks."
On second thought, liberals like Matt Yglesias or Yascha Mounk seem far more persuasive (and accurate) in assessingt our current predicament, and in their suggestions for how to address it.
I'm with you 100%. The establishment is now the right-wing in this country. Youscha Mounk was out to lunch in his assessment btw.
Step one: Find the party that doesn't use the White House to suppress the speech of those it disagrees with or conduct ridiculous show trials targeting its political foes. Now which one would that be? Hmmm.....
I'm right there with you on the discredited socialist schemes, but can you explain to me why mercantilist schemes and rabidly nativist nationalism are not also discredited?
Very good. Thanks for this.