U.S. Politics: A Democracy In Decay

[OldGimletEye]

One more reason why is time to get tough on the conservatism.

https://www.vox.com/health-care/2017/6/15/15807986/obamacare-lies-obstruction

Quote

“The extreme secrecy is a situation without precedent, at least in creating health care law” writes Julie Rovner, who has covered health care politics since 1986 and is arguably the dean of the DC health care press corps.

I don’t have quite as long of a tenure as Rovner, but I have been covering health care politics since Democrats began debating the Affordable Care Act in 2009. It’s become obvious to me, particularly this week, that Republicans plan to move more quickly and less deliberatively than Democrats did in drafting the Affordable Care Act. They intend to do this despite repeatedly and angrily criticizing the Affordable Care Act for being moved too quickly and with too little deliberation.

 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Week said:

You put it better than I -- no worries.

[The Anti-Targ]

@OldGimletEye

Quote

That hangs on whether

1) they ever regain power'

2) there's anything left to regain power over.

 

That's why I phrased it as "should they ever return to power." Now maybe they won't. Don't know as I misplaced my Planatir and I can't find it. But, I'm certainly not ready to give up yet. Not really my style.

One thing you don't need a Palantir for is that the Democrats will not for the long forseeable future have 60 votes to overcome the filibuster. So unless is can be done as a reconciliation thing (right?) then single payer is a pipe dream in the USA for as far as that forseeable future stretches. 

[LongRider]

3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Getting universal healthcare has been a goal of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party since 1946 when Harry Truman first made a speech about it in 1946. I don’t see the logic in quitting now, particularly since the tide seems to be turning, and liberals have been fighting for this for about 70 years.

Seventy years is along time, however, as a reference, it took seventy years of political action to get women the vote in America, so keep fighting 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, The Anti-Targ said:

@OldGimletEye

One thing you don't need a Palantir for is that the Democrats will not for the long forseeable future have 60 votes to overcome the filibuster. So unless is can be done as a reconciliation thing (right?) then single payer is a pipe dream in the USA for as far as that forseeable future stretches. 

That indeed is a problem. But, from a policy standpoint, I think single payer is the best solution. So, I think it's an argument worth making. I don't expect this to be an easy fight. And I don't expect it to get resolved quickly. That doesn't mean to me, quit though. Also if public opinion continues to be favorable, then maybe there will be chance.

And also, hammer away at the Republican healthcare "plan". I'm sure there is some political mileage to be had there.

[The Anti-Targ]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

That indeed is a problem. But, from a policy standpoint, I think single payer is the best solution. So, I think it's an argument worth making. I don't expect this to be an easy fight. And I don't expect it to get resolved quickly. That doesn't mean to me, quit though. Also if public opinion continues to be favorable, then maybe there will be chance.

And also, hammer away at the Republican healthcare "plan". I'm sure there is some political mileage to be had there.

Every just cause is worth fighting for in perpetuity. It's just that your original post seemed a tad bit optimistic on time-frame.

[OldGimletEye]

Also, this is kind of like if Jeb Hensarling gets his dumb ass financial bomb act through. I think it's very bad. And I hope the Democrats would press to get rid of it. Whether it takes 10 years, 20 years, or 30 years or whatever. It's good policy. And by doing it, you might prevent a future generation of having to suffer the pain of a financial crises.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, The Anti-Targ said:

Every just cause is worth fighting for in perpetuity. It's just that your original post seemed a tad bit optimistic on time-frame.

It did? I don't think it even suggested that the Democrats would even take power again. But, anyway, I don't see any of this being a short term fight. I see it as being a very long term fight.

In fact, I've alluded to this in prior posts. Saying basically liberals should maybe copy the conservative playbook, when the conservatives really started to build there movement up in the 1970s, after having their candidate shellacked in the 1964 election. I'd argue they were successful in shifting the country to the right politically, perhaps culminating in the "new democrats" decision to triangulate.

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Nobody is saying government gets everything right. It doesn’t. But, it’s a complete piece of Republican bull to say it never is capable of getting anything right. Medicare for instance is quite popular and it has very low administrative cost.

And just compare this alleged government failure to, oh I don't know, let's say the private market failure during the last financial crises?

I get the feeling that governments are actually very efficient at what they do, as long as their action is not undermined by political decisions.

But it's just a feeling, and I'm aware of my bias. Simply put, all the modern examples of government failures I can think of are really the product of terrible political decisions, and in the last decades, many of those decisions were completely deliberate.
A common conservative strategy throughout the West has been to deliberately cut or misappropriate funding and then claim that agencies or programs were ineffective.
My instinct even tells me that there is a very conscious strategy at work there, designed to hide just how efficient governments actually are in order to privatize their services. I've seen numbers not being reported and facts being misrepresented. Thus, people are increasingly convinced that government is bad and will gladly vote against their own interests.

If someone knew a good book analysing the subject, it'd be much appreciated. I've read an economist or two having touched on the subject, but they tend to use examples rather than extensive data.

[felice]

2 hours ago, Inigima said:

Well, yes, my simplification into a two-paragraph pair of examples is -- as you might expect -- a bit light on detail. I think the point I'm making stands.

I completely agree with you that healthcare shouldn't be handled by the private sector, but I'm less convinced that the same logic doesn't apply to other industries. It's easier to add incentives to innovate and improve to public producers than it is to prevent private producers from behaving undesirably in response to free market incentives. Health insurance companies have the same incentives as any other industry to compete by appearing to offer better and/or cheaper products than their competitors, and other industries have the same incentives to minimise costs. The downsides might be particularly obvious and serious with healthcare, but they exist in other industries as well.

[ThinkerX]

Ok. Three telephone polls over the past three days dealing with the AHCA, each with a distinct negative slant.  The one offered to put me directly in touch with Senator Murkowski's office.  This is a heavily Conservative area (small town Alaska)

 

I am reaching the conclusion that should the AHCA pass, the Republicans responsible will have Hell To Pay back home, even if they try to hide from their (Republican) voters.  Hell To Pay including possible grievous violence against their persons.  It's starting to look that ugly.    

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I get the feeling that governments are actually very efficient at what they do, as long as their action is not undermined by political decisions.

...

My instinct even tells me that there is a very conscious strategy at work there, designed to hide just how efficient governments actually are in order to privatize their services. I've seen numbers not being reported and facts being misrepresented. Thus, people are increasingly convinced that government is bad and will gladly vote against their own interests.

If someone knew a good book analysing the subject, it'd be much appreciated. I've read an economist or two having touched on the subject, but they tend to use examples rather than extensive data.

I don't have the answer to the bolded.  That is for public policy scholars, of which I am not one.  However, I can give you a lot on the underlined, at least in terms of how poly sci and public management address the subject:

To understand the relationship between Congress, the president, and the bureaucracy, political scientists began applying principal agent models by the 1980s (at the latest).  There are quite a few canonical works, but this book is what I would recommend to clarify concepts (if not extensive data), as it's quite accessible.  These two works more specifically get to your request in terms of demonstrating the importance of bureaucracy in affecting "good" policy.  

"Delegation models," or the competition between two principals (Congress and the president) over control of the agent (bureaucracy), is an entire subfield of bureaucratic study.  This is the common agency problem (one agent has to answer to two principals) I was referring to upthread.  There is a lot of foundational work on this.  Again, here are three articles that address your interest with more specificity, although they are heavy in jargon.

Finally, or maybe I should have just started with this, there are two recent books that highlight the importance of careerist bureaucrats - while outlining how principals can capitalize on their skills.  Gailmard and Patty's (2013) Learning While Governing emphasizes and outlines how principals (re: officeholders) must incentivize bureaucrats with autonomy or policy discretion in order for the latter to acquire the requisite expertise.  The trick is affording bureaucrats such slack while still mitigating bureaucratic drift.  William Resh's (2015) Rethinking the Administrative Presidency presents political appointees as the all-important "fulcrum" between the president and careerist bureaucrats.  Establishing trust is essential, and only by fostering such trust between appointee and careerists can presidents successfully cajole the bureaucracy into exacting their agenda.

Ok, I'll stop.  Just basically ran down the highlights of the first half in a bureaucracy seminar reading list.  Sorry if that came on too strong - feel free to ignore.  Of course, if you have any further interest/questions about anything above feel more than welcome to let me know, would totally love it.  Relatedly, if you cannot access any of the articles I linked and want to, just PM me and I can email you a PDF.  Can't do much about....most of the books, although I think I might have many chapters of some of them hiding in a long forgotten zip file or something.

[ants]

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

@OldGimletEye

One thing you don't need a Palantir for is that the Democrats will not for the long forseeable future have 60 votes to overcome the filibuster. So unless is can be done as a reconciliation thing (right?) then single payer is a pipe dream in the USA for as far as that forseeable future stretches. 

But the original argument was for medicare expansion, and you don't need 60 votes for that. It was pointing out that the Republicans have effectively shown Democrats the way - use reconciliation and a bill that taxes the rich subsidies to pay for medicare expansion for all, and voila, you can just go through reconciliation. No filibuster, and everyone can join the government insurer. 

[Kalbear]

30 minutes ago, ants said:

But the original argument was for medicare expansion, and you don't need 60 votes for that. It was pointing out that the Republicans have effectively shown Democrats the way - use reconciliation and a bill that taxes the rich subsidies to pay for medicare expansion for all, and voila, you can just go through reconciliation. No filibuster, and everyone can join the government insurer. 

I suspect that would not work as the law to expand Medicare would likely be pretty hard to do without actual law changes with no budgetary considerations. 

[ants]

30 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I suspect that would not work as the law to expand Medicare would likely be pretty hard to do without actual law changes with no budgetary considerations. 

Well, that is what the article was saying. And the Republicans are certainly making changes to the ACA based on the argument they're budgetary rather than structural changes. If the structure of medicare stays the same, except its open for others to purchase, and you change the costings so they're budget neutral, I think you could use reconciliation.

[karaddin]

On 15/06/2017 at 2:02 AM, Relic said:

Reading through Twitter today it is becoming more and more obvious how insidious and out of control that platform is. There is just a total flood of fake stories being re-shared hundreds of times currently about this, which is truly frightening. Twitter needs to be held accountable. 

 

Twitter is a tricky thing. It is being more and more overtly wielded by the people in charge of it to elevate the voices of hate and abuse as it continues to refuse to ban them, while suspending accounts for calling them out and apparently deciding "queer" is an unacceptable word. But its also a platform that is used by minority groups to connect with each other, to communicate and share ideas more effectively than we've ever had before. To coordinate and fight back. That platform is more valuable even as its being used to try prop up power.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

4 hours ago, karaddin said:

 

Twitter is a tricky thing. It is being more and more overtly wielded by the people in charge of it to elevate the voices of hate and abuse as it continues to refuse to ban them, while suspending accounts for calling them out and apparently deciding "queer" is an unacceptable word. But its also a platform that is used by minority groups to connect with each other, to communicate and share ideas more effectively than we've ever had before. To coordinate and fight back. That platform is more valuable even as its being used to try prop up power.

I mean who is really even using Twitter outside of public figures and those wanting to increase their brand visibility?  I'd say the media over indexes it and over plays its relevance, in comparison to general public use. 

You also find groups on all sides complaining about being censored or shut down or people not being shut down, so I don't think it is any more biased than any other platform. 

 

[Fragile Bird]

2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I mean who is really even using Twitter outside of public figures and those wanting to increase their brand visibility?  I'd say the media over indexes it and over plays its relevance, in comparison to general public use. 

You also find groups on all sides complaining about being censored or shut down or people not being shut down, so I don't think it is any more biased than any other platform. 

 

Did you even read the post you quoted?

[karaddin]

2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I mean who is really even using Twitter outside of public figures and those wanting to increase their brand visibility?  I'd say the media over indexes it and over plays its relevance, in comparison to general public use. 

You also find groups on all sides complaining about being censored or shut down or people not being shut down, so I don't think it is any more biased than any other platform. 

 

Lol...A whole lot of people use it. All around the world. Just because you only see the celebrities doesn't mean they are the only ones on there, it just means that's all you're being exposed to.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I hate twitter.