It’s darned hard to find a really clear-eyed, fair appraisal of the likelihood that Healthcare.gov, the web portal of the PPACA healthcare exchanges, will be fixed by November 30. The best I’ve found so far is by Arnold Kling who at least has some credentials for reasonable speculations. I think that this remark of his is probably true:
If it is still broken at the end of November, the chances increase that starting over is the fastest path to a working system. But starting over requires a stronger political consensus in favor of the policy that the system is supposed to implement. And we do not have that.
I continue to think that the Obama Administration would help itself more by devoting its full energies to making the darned thing work than blaming it on Republicans, trying to defend the president’s “if you like your insurance” claim, and trying to excuse the inexcuseable. I don’t think any of those strategies will reduce downside risk.
I tried to enroll through the federal exchange to see what my cost would be for different plans, and weasels jumped from the screen and ripped my flesh.
Or I suppose they could have been flesh-eating platypodes — didn’t know about those. I blame Bush.
Focusing on the political over the reality indicates that they don’t know how to fix the underlying problems (or perhaps know that those problems are insoluble.) if these guys were half as good at governing as they are at finger-pointing, deflection, and revisionism, we’d have a roaring economy and universal health care coverage at affordabke rates by niw.
Another possibility is that they think that “finger-pointing, deflection, and revisionism” is governing and nothing more needs to be done.
@Dave: i guess I was giving them credit for not being morons.
The David Cutler memo to Larry Summers memo is interesting.
When Bush was elected, I can recall a number of pundits offering a recommendation for a book for him to read. I recall no such condensations for Obama, but my book was/is Cadillac Desert, which I know a lot of people like for its concern over water scarcity in the West. But to me, the book best encapsulates “the agency of agencies;” large governmental programs necessarily are performed by departments with histories, personalities, capabilities, incentives and disincentives. Their leadership is often selected for political reasons, either passing an ideological test or appeasing an interest group. These are the tools of progress.
CStanley:
I don’t think you must be a moron to believe that. All that is required is extreme partisanship.
When Bush was elected, I can recall a number of pundits offering a recommendation for a book for him to read. I recall no such condensations for Obama
I have been recalling that, as well as the infamous Katie Couric interview query of Sarah Palin’s reading habits. It’s a shame no one asked Obama which newspapers he reads, given that we’ve learned that this is his main source of information about the events and actions of his administration.
Liberal democrats mock what they construe as deficiencies in others, when their ideology is refuted. This is one of the notable traits of social progressives — the condescension shown by them towards conservatives followed by an enlarged superiority complex. It seems to be the educated, knowing them — the elites of society — against the little primitive people. Hence, we are getting today’s rhetoric defending people’s HC policy cancellations as being something that is “for their own good” — casting the policies serf-like middle class people chose for themselves as inferior, crappy etc.
How do they get away with this?
Jan- mocking deficiencies in others when confronted with one’s own shortcomings is a human trait, not exclusive to liberals. What you are describing is just the specific manner in which the liberals do this. Perhaps it’s more productive if we all spend some time taking the planks out of our own eyes.
Another possibility is that they think that “finger-pointing, deflection, and revisionism†is governing and nothing more needs to be done.
I think it more likely still that they simply do not care about actual governance and administration of policy. Unimportant people do that sort of thing.
Plus, it isn’t their skill-set. Their skill-set includes fund-raising and message control and public relations and getting elected. So, as Schuler likes to say, they’re merely returning to their core competency for lack of any clue what to do otherwise.
It’s a shame no one asked Obama which newspapers he reads, given that we’ve learned that this is his main source of information about the events and actions of his administration.
That’s not strictly fair. He also gets information from the daily intelligence summary (basically a power point presentation) that he skims, without actually talking to the people that produce the reports. So there’s that, too.
CStanley,
IMO, “mocking” is a more frequently seen social progressive’s response to policy/ideology differences, delivered with great gusto and confidence of being right than in republican circles . The latter party kind of simmers and conducts statistical, cold analysis of their differences, which is not much of a crowd-pleaser.
Planks in people’s eyes are nailed up by each set of party leaders, operatives, pundits, which then closes it’s members off to understanding and critically thinking through both sides of disputed issues. The PPACA is a prime example of that from it’s start to where we are today.