Comments on: David Brooks and Mark Shields on Obamacare

By: Seth

Seth — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 04:09:03 +0000

Sounds like Brooks and Shields have it figured out. If we don’t want to to do what Brooks and Shields think best, it’s because we’re selfish. It can’t be that we think there are far better solutions where we can all come out ahead, rather than having to ‘take one for the team.’

By: Lord

Lord — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 21:43:49 +0000

What better view of how markets fail than health care. Assuming markets can fix health care is assuming we have just left the Garden of Eden.

By: Vivian Darkbloom

Vivian Darkbloom — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 23:00:35 +0000

“But the losers felt part of a larger collective and they said, OK, I’m going to take a hit for the team. We may no longer have that sense of being part of a larger collective…”

“That is, it could be that the wonks who designed Obamacare had the right idea, and that the American people are too selfish and too unwilling to trust government to allow it to be implemented honestly and properly.”

I have a different take on this.

It could be that the losers (and some of the prior winners) of the New Deal and Great Society legislation now have the benefit of experience. They have seen the consequences of these grand experiments and have come to the conclusion that they are not sustainable and especially that layering another “grand idea” on top of the prior ones is not.

So, this may not at all be a matter of “selfishness”; it may just be a rational reaction to experience and one might label that prudence.

By: sam

sam — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 03:16:25 +0000

I think there are three separate issues here:

1: It is true that Brooks and Shields do not appreciate capitalism. They have made their lives in organizations based on credentialing, convincing, and consensus. They likely have little appreciation for the processes of competition, evolution, and the adversarial posture.

2: That being said, they are right. There is little sense of “we” in the United States. To make an obvious example, I don’t have anything in common with the Brooks and Shields of the world. The geographic and cultural variation of opinion in this country is enormous, and the legislative process is reflecting that.

3: Because of the variance of opinion, large government projects will fail. ACA was dead the day it was signed, as will nearly any other large bill. The difference in opinion in this country is great enough that any sweeping piece of legislation will require sufficient compromise, lying, and bribery as to make it cumbersome and unworkable.

When it comes down to it, we’re just not that in to each other. That’s why I’m a believer in federalism.

By: Floccina

Floccina — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 02:45:57 +0000

BTW when Windows Visa was first released it was not much better than healthcare.gov.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 02:43:04 +0000

“But the losers felt part of a larger collective and they said, OK, I’m going to take a hit for the team. We may no longer have that sense of being part of a larger collective…”

Is this true? Were all of the “losers” of the New Deal just happy to pitch in? Or were they an unhappy minority that was just overrun by a majority? I have no idea what the answer is, but my sense is that when people narrate history, they like to suggest that human nature has somehow changed over time for the worse. That doesn’t sound likely to me.

By: Floccina

Floccina — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 02:35:04 +0000

1. IMO if you tried PPACA when healthcare spending was 5% of GDP it would have been less of a problem but 18% of GDP is huge.
2. It is very early yet. I do not like PPACA but I think it is cleverly designed to hide most of the cost and show most of the benefits so that the people might grow to love it.
3. Big projects do seem more difficult because government and the rent seeking process has matured.
4. As for the new deal I think that for example SS was structured it a way to fool the voters because else it would not have been supported. The employer match, the fact that high earners get more etc.

By: Daublin

Daublin — Sun, 17 Nov 2013 23:32:16 +0000

Like, Jeff R., I question the assumption. The New Deal *sounded* nice to lots of people. However, how much ofthe New Deal is still around? My impression is that the majority of it was taken down over the decades, as cooler heads prevaled.

They weren’t good ideas. They just sounded like good ideas to people with soft heads.

By: Rich Berger

Rich Berger — Sun, 17 Nov 2013 23:13:17 +0000

I wonder if Shields would have a job in the for-profit media. He’s on the dole, so it’s not surprising that he is a government man.

By: Curt

Curt — Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:32:15 +0000

I think most people can see the strength of market processes, certainly in areas where profit may be had, and often beyond. But still there are areas where government action is needed, I’d claim. And I know Arnold draws heavily on the message from ‘The Best and the Brightest’ on the limits of elites.

So my question is what is the alternative? The world is in many ways a complex place, and it seems to be very difficult to sweep away and simplify. Many folks seem to want ‘status quo’ despite the known complexities and issues. While I agree that it would be good to see some humility on the part of experts in terms of what they can truly achieve, psychologically it sees like expertise and hubris tend to pair up.