Tuesday, March 04, 2008

A minute and a half with Barack Obama years afterward

I was reading yesterday the fellow blogger Marc Andreessen's [ tongue in cheek gesture :-) he is the co-founder of Netscape ] article "An hour and a half with Barack Obama", and I thought that I could do a better job [ really ]. It happens that I haven't donated him $10,000 nor even a single dollar, I even declined his request to help him hand out a few flyers, and probably we spoke less than a minute and a half total, but boy, I have great things to say about those ~90 seconds and the successive years.

It should have been the Fall of 2003 the day I met Barack Obama, but just like Andreessen begins his article with disclaimers, before relating to you this story, I need to say a few disclaimers of my own: I have been as opinionated in Politics as I am in technical matters, the problem is that my effectiveness as a political organizer led to my blacklisting by the incipient communist regime in my home country and my eventual departure, thus, being just a guest in the USA, I try not to discuss its policies nor its politics. After a long thought about it, I concluded that I can still relate my encounter with Mr. Obama without it being a distasteful intromision into U.S. politics, and there are some ideas that I think are novel, worthy of communicating.

Anyway, what happened was that I was walking around the corner of Madison and Western, a predominantly African American neighborhood, and there was someone handing out flyers, for what seemed like a political campaign. When I walked by this person, who turned out to be Barack Obama, he offered me a flyer, but I had to tell him that I couldn't accept it because I didn't vote. Immediately, Obama said something along the lines that that was deplorable, that without voting no improvements may happen, to which I replied that I agreed with him, but that I still couldn't vote 'cos I was just a "visa-student".

At this point, Mr. Obama was already intriguing to me, it was his demeanor that denoted great culture, it helped he didn't speak with the thick African American slang typical of Chicago. Then, Obama said something I couldn't possibly expect, like "Really?, my father met my mother when he was a visa student!". Although we were interrupting each other's business (I couldn't vote for him so there was no practical objective for him to speak with me, and I was fairly in a hurry), we still wanted to chat; perhaps just like for me it was interesting to out of the blue make an acquaintance with a very cultured gentleman in a notoriously rough neighborhood, for him it may have been refreshing to speak with a cultured Hispanic without accent; so I asked him where his father was from, "Kenya", he said, and I replied that I guessed it was very different from the monotony of most of the U.S., to which he asked whether I still liked this city, and I said that sure, Chicago was special, that it had a distinctive personality in so many ways; that I had discovered skills at Photography trying to capture the visuals of the city so that my friends back home could enjoy. By this time, I was totally misled into thinking that this guy I was talking to was running for some City Council or some ward as Alderman... to this day I still don't know what was he was running for. Anyway, he talked a little about the personality of the city, from the point of view of the communities of Chicago. By that time at least a minute and a half had passed and we had to go on our businesses. So, we shook hands and told our names.

I quickly forgot his exact name, I could only recall the strangeness of it. Although I forgot some details, this was memorable to me because this encounter made me feel proud to live in a place whose city politicians were very likable, modest, "down to earth" cultured people like the one I just met. I told a few friends about this encounter, but no one cared much about it nor knew him.

About a year later, I had a conversation with a friend of mine from New York, and he asked me if I had ever heard of a Democratic politician from Chicago, some "Barack Obama". This was after his insertion into superstardom orbit with his speech at the Democratic National Convention of 2004, of which I didn't know a thing at the time, so, ignoring why my friend was asking, I told him that I thought I did, that I met a black politician with a funny name running for Alderman or something, that they had to be the same person because there weren't so many names like that, and that yes, the guy had caused a really good impression, the whole thing. My friend then tells me that I must be wrong, 'cos that politician was already a State senator, that the reason why he was asking was his recent speech. I immediately went to watch the video on the Internet and had one of the most intense "OH MY GOD!" moments of awe in my life (Google for it, it is worth!).

One of the things it still surprises me about Obama is his authenticity. I mean, it isn't an efficient form of campaign to individually hand out fliers on a Chicago corner, a successful politician doesn't normally do that, unless s/he has a genuine desire to speak with people; our encounter illustrates this point.

Anyway, then it came his bid for the U.S. Senate, and then the publishing of "The Audacity of Hope". By that time, I still wasn't paying too much attention to Obama, until Newsweek publishes a long excerpt of "Audacity", one that dealt with his religious tribulations until he settled for his current Church. I was very pleasantly surprised a third time by Obama, being an agnostic myself, I tend to see Religion not much more than as a problem that engenders intolerance and a handicap for intelligence and progress, but reading Obama's accounts on the subject, about the significance and value of spiritualness, about how Churches could help positive social change, I appreciated that here there was someone with the intellectual depth to be able to not just elegantly walk on the very sharp edges of the subject of religion, but to also be actually persuasive about propositions that I have been opposed to most of my adult life; then I had to read the whole book.

Reading "Audacity", it emerges a more complete idea of who Obama is. I had the advantage to have actually spoken with him before his superstardom, so, when he speaks in "Audacity" about the ordeal of commuting to Washington through the O'Hare Airport rather than using his privileges as a Senator to use private jets so that he can talk to normal people, I have evidence to think that what he is saying is sincere, no bullshit. Another thing is that although he is fond of being in touch with actual people, he is not at all the kind of demagogue/populist that appeals to voter ignorance; on the contrary, he is in his own right an academic of highest caliber and best selling author who is not afraid of disagreeing with his political constituency on issues like abortion or foreign trade when the reasons are compelling; his political success stems from his ability to appeal to reason to bridge differences. Being successful at getting support from diverse constituencies that do not agree 100% with him, it is no surprise his evident success at garnering "bipartisan" support for his legislative initiatives.

The guy actually gave me a fourth "punch". I am not an U.S. citizen, so, it is a given that I can look at the U.S. from the outside; but I have been invited to look at it from the inside and have been always open and exposed to its culture and its essence , so, I think I have both perspectives, that's why I venture say that Obama's speech in Des Moines on Dec. 18 had a flash of greatness that really touched me:

[My opponent] will not be able to say that I wavered on something as fundamental as whether or not it is ok for America to torture — because it is never ok… I will close Guantanamo. I will restore habeas corpus… And I will lead the world to combat the common threats of the 21st century: nuclear weapons and terrorism; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. And I will send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, "You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now.”
We must remember the context in which this words were said. At the moment, Mr. Obama was nothing but the very long shot for the candidacy who had just become a not so very long shot. So, what is the point of demonstrating that you care for the "yearning faces beyond our shores", or that he cares for the "towelheads" accused of implications to the massacre of 9/11?. I think it is fair to say that the relationship between what happens to the accused in Guantanamo and what happens to the common citizen is perceived at best as abstract and remote by the vast majority of the citizens of this country, that the people probably supported the actions of the current administration in that regard, so, why antagonize something that is apparently popular for principles that are perhaps too nuanced for the common people to appreciate?; why did Obama said that at times he already was being criticized for not being a "true American"? Was it a blunder?

This is another example of apparent electoral inefficiency that reveals what Obama is about, and here I begin to speculate: The logical extension of the body of thesis of what Obama stands for is what the excerpt says, thus, I guess he thinks he would rather elevate the plane of discussion from the day to day bickering to the ultimate ideals he stands for, than trying to please everybody by being devoid of any meaningful stance that could be attacked. That is, he is going to be attacked sooner than later for everything, so its better to show the daring to express what he really stands for to come across as a principled candidate and force the opponents to risk coming across as unprincipled, cynic, mean spirited, to force them to accuse him of being a "hope monger".

I can't say that this is the "correct" electoral strategy because all over the world politicians are elected by spewing the bullshit their constituencies want to hear, I mean, for me, public policy issues have become hopelessly complex for ignorant citizenries that can't do anything but be manipulated; the greatness comes from not appealing to the low instincts of fear, envy, egotism, that have been proved efficient to win elections, but, at times the electorate seems to feel overwhelmed with primary concerns, to dare higher messages that are essentially generous and by actually making them prevail.

These words are not very original, in fact, compare unfavorably to others like those of John Kennedy's inaugural:
To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
Again, what makes them special is the context in which they were said: Kennedy wasn't risking anything by saying what he said, he already had won the whole thing and just needed to convey the idea of a grand beginning, Obama gives munition to the petty politicians in a very tight contest by aiming to objectives that may not be so popular, but are "right".

Another compelling thing about Obama is his intelligence. Take "Audacity", for instance: Is it a text of great literary value? I don't think so: It is not full of immortal "one-liners" nor anything of the sort, rather mundane things, at times it is even boring; but one must not fail to appreciate how fascinating it is his account of his most improbable role among the most powerful political entity the world has ever seen (the U.S.A.). Being a scientist/engineer myself, I took notice of the reiteration of this quality of being the "odd ball" that Obama has experienced his whole life: The improbable relation between his mother and father, his early life in Hawaii and Indonesia, growing up in mainstream U.S. not being white nor black, his religious doubts, his descent to organize communities in the the Chicago rings of poverty from the academic heights of the presidency of Harvard Law Review to his posterior ascent to the world wide prime stage is almost mythical, an invitation to think about Karmic fate, but more concretely his perennial oddity tells me volumes about the intellectual tools this person possesses: The good skeptic gets to deeper truths than the dogmatic, not being able to take things for granted, the misfit is forced to synthesize the elements of his success. Obama has walked the sharp edges of the great matters of life his whole life, well, "Audacity" demonstrates how good he became at it. Needless to say it, those are greatly desirable qualities for people in positions of great power.

Obama's increasing chances made me think about change, reforms and revolutions. Of the great processes of change in History, it seems that the most perdurable and profound are those initiated by insiders/outsiders: If complete outsiders begin a process of change, the momentum gets consumed in the replacement of the incumbent oligarchy, the ideals dilute due to the practicalities of consolidating power; if complete insiders initiate a reform, it tends to be "Gattopardian", things change so that everything remains the same. There is one notable partial counterexample, though, which is the History of the "American Revolution", that consolidated itself by radicalizing its principles, but anyway, when a reform gets initiated by the inside it gets better chances. Also, profound reforms initiated by the inside may lead to the collapse of the whole system, as it happened with the Soviet Union, here it is critical how good the leadership is to assess how far the system can move without breaking.

Paradoxically, South America is suffering a contagious infection of neo communism, so everything that smells to "progressiveness" (what is commonly understood as "liberal" in the U.S. is referred to as "progressive" elsewhere), that is, Obama, is seen as an ally of the neo communism while in fact it may be its deadliest enemy: His election would demonstrate that the U.S. is not an exploitative empire, communists would not be able to chalk everything bad that happens in the world to the "evil" U.S., they would have to accept more responsibility in their failures, demagogy becomes harder; this is what I try to explain to my friends there. I don't know much about the Islamic world, but the same principle I see clearly where I come from may apply to the Islamic world...

It gives me great delight that Mr. Obama and I are almost neighbors, we live less than half a mile apart, and frequently there is no detour to go by his place when I go home, which gives me plenty of opportunities to entertain my friends with this anecdote. Also, my wife is a Ph.D. candidate at the UoC where he used to teach; so there are several links that have me come closer to his figure; please excuse my lack of objectiveness, but before dismissing my
enthusiasm as just rooting for the local team, I encourage you to get to know him better. It happened to me that the more I learned about him, the more amazed I became.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Being successful at getting support from diverse constituencies that do not agree 100% with him, it is no surprise his evident success at garnering "bipartisan" support for his legislative initiatives"

I must admit, I admire his words and his refreshing approach to campaigning and politics, but I have had a difficult time finding any specific examples of where he led a bi-partisan effort in his time in the US Senate. He talks baout it a lot in his speeches but he rarely provides any specific examples of how he has done this as a US Senator. In fact it seems over recent years both McCain and Clinton have done more 'reaching across the aisle' in the Senate then Obama.

For me the rubber will hit the road (assuming he is the nomineee), if he indeed follows through in his pledge to go the public financing route in the presidential campaign in an effort to get the influence of money out of politics (McCain also made the same pledge so it will be real interesting to see what both do). I fear as he is now raising so much money in the primaries (over $1.5Million per day) that he may be tempted to go back on this pledge. His actions here will show his integrity and whether he truly believes in a new kind of politics.

I'm also deeply concerned with his position on NAFTA and my perception that this is simple pandering to people in Ohio. The US lost nearly as many net manufacturing jobs (~2.8Mil) in the 15 years before NAFTA, as the loss of net manufacturing jobs (~3Mil) in the 15 years after NAFTA. This hardly seems to be the source of the issues he claims. So while the demagoging on the evils of NAFTA to the unions in Ohio may be good politically, it does not appear to be founded in facts (nor his competitor who is saying the same thing).

Khorgano said...

Good posting, I appreciate reading others thoughts and feelings on the candidates and political landscape. I no doubt believe that Obama is a very good person with all but the best of intentions for this country, but this love affair everyone has with the man has to stop. His message of Hope is nothing but that, Hope, there is no substance behind it. In fact, if you look at his policies (MY GOD THE POLICIES) it would rip our constitution to shreds, even more than what the current retard in office has done.

I have no doubt he would do an admiral job of 'trying' to protect 'current' constitutionally given individual rights, but he would completely undermine them (unwittingly to himself and others) with his extreme economic and social policies. We're talking about the NEW "New Deal", a radical redefinition of rights in our constitution (right to work, right to a home, right to education, right to health care) coupled extreme socialism and regulation that would rock our economy to its core and making everyone subservient and dependent to the governments whims. There is no way our economy can begin to hope to pay for the fiscal irresponsibilty laid before us with the stupidity of the Bush Administration. The economy is already on shaky ground, and if he begins hiking up taxes (OVER 50% in the highest bracket) on income, capital gains and dividends, we're talking about turning this into a depression. We're talking about an economic collapse worse than that of the USSR.

There is no goldilocks economy and if we don't return to sound monetary policy and fiscal responsibilty with limited federal government oversight and regulation, we're looking at a very bleak and disasterous future. Everyone can HOPE all they want with Obama, but be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.

The US GAO weighs in on the seriousness of the situations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch
?v=KjZBOCAgR64

http://www.youtube.com/watch
?v=D6Q14HOBThM

Eddie said...

Anonymous: thank you for your comment, but please leave a name, you don't need to sign in nor anything.

Regarding the substance, mind you that I am not in the position to defend Obama's candidacy, furthermore, I am not even in agreement with all of his positions.

As a resident of Illinois I am aware at the evident success of Obama at getting support from the Republicans for his legislative initiatives, that's what I talked about in the article. I would grant you that it is not as evident the level of bipartisan support he has gotten in the U.S. Senate, only because his tenure has been brief, but, even in this brief tenure, the number of his initiatives that got to become law, and the bipartisan support have been more typical of not just senior Senators, but important political figures.

Noteworthy, Republican figures such as McCain himself have co-sponsored and supported Obama's initiatives!

Please, read the wikipedia entry on the matter, before saying that it has been difficult to find evidence for Obama's bipartisan support. I fully stand for the words you quoted that I wrote: Obama not just gets bipartisan support, but a lot of it, and not just in the Illinois Senate, but most importantly, in the U.S. senate too.

Please, come back once you are better informed, and tell us if you still have the same opinion.

Regarding Free Trade and NAFTA, I am all for it, I am what in the U.S. would be called "Libertarian". Now, I am not ignorant. There is a problem with Free Trade that applies to NAFTA: There are poor countries whose labor is pretty much slave labor, so, when production moves from places where workers have freedoms to places where workers are semi-slaves, it is obviously cheaper; so, this is an example of how the freedom to trade hurts the freedoms of workers because it puts them in direct competition with semi-slave workers. Also, there is higher awareness about environmental damage in developed countries than in poor countries, when enviromentally-nasty production practices are moved from the developed world where they are unacceptable to the poor countries, the damage remains the same, but the companies don't pay for it, therefore it is cheaper.

Eddie said...

Khorgano: Thanks again by leaving a comment. Allow me to get to its substance:

"but this love affair everyone has with the man has to stop. His message of Hope is nothing but that, Hope, there is no substance behind it"

I think that if you get to know better what are the personal qualities of Obama, and about his political positions too, it may happen that you could change your opinion. I say this because you already accept that he could do a good job of protecting the current system of liberties, and that I actually agree with you about concerns that his propositions imply more stifling regulation which may do more harm than good; nevertheless, just like I discuss in the article, Obama is persuasive regarding things that I strongly disagree with, like the role of Religion; not just because he is a good talker, but because he is a good thinker: The propositions are intelligent, practical, not easily dismissed taken as a whole.

In the article I mention that reformers may turn the system to its breaking point. I certainly see some of Obama's propositions as capable of unleashing a nightmarish crisis, but in the end I know, first hand, may I say, how intelligent the guy actually is, that eases my worries, I would like him to be the CEO of any of the companies I am bullish on, wouldn't take bearish positions against any company he would be the CEO.

One last thing regarding the taxes for the upper brackets: Just like it implies in my quotation from Kennedy's inaugural: "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich", it is an illusion that a few rich people may enjoy absolutely essential things like adequate health care regardless of whether more than 50% of the people do; that can only happen temporarily, before such a system collapses.

Like I just said, I am a bona fide Libertarian, at first approach I shouldn't be sympathetic to this candidacy, but since I have been getting to know this candidacy for so long, I have the benefit of knowledge to overcome appearances.

Anonymous said...

'Regarding Free Trade and NAFTA, I am all for it, I am what in the U.S. would be called "Libertarian". Now, I am not ignorant. There is a problem with Free Trade that applies to NAFTA: There are poor countries whose labor is pretty much slave labor, so, when production moves from places where workers have freedoms to places where workers are semi-slaves, it is obviously cheaper'

You are conveniently lumping world trade issues with NAFTA (NORTH AMERICA)... does your slave labor apply to the companies that participate in NAFTA? Is NAFTA responsible for manufacturing job losses in Ohio? Have you considered the INCREASED # of US jobs through increases exports as a result of NAFTA? My point is/was the NAFTA bashing is imply BOTH Hillary and Barack pandering to Ohio while ignoring the facts and statistics behind NAFTA.

I completely agree with you regarding WORLD trade issues, but is it reasonable to just lump those issue with NAFTA? I think that is intellectually dishonest and preying on people's fears in Ohio t omake political hay.

Eddie said...

Anonymous, please leave a name.

"You are conveniently lumping world trade issues with NAFTA (NORTH AMERICA)... does your slave labor apply to the companies that participate in NAFTA?"

Yes, it applies. In Latin America, most countries define laws that give great privileges to oligarchies and restrict what the common people can do, as a result of that, there is self-induced misery and problems that reduce the options of the workers, and they are pretty much forced to work for survivability wages that directly and indirectly benefit the U.S. companies that moved production there. To call that "semi-slavery" would be a stretch, though, but I never claimed that, I just said that there are problems with Free Trade that apply to NAFTA.

It is good that at least we agree that there are problems with Free Trade. Like I said, I still am all for Free Trade, that's implicitly telling you that I think that overall NAFTA has given lots of benefits to all the parties involved. Now, I say it explicitly.

Regarding Ohio, I never addressed your concerns regarding the campaign in that state, it may very well has been what you criticize: politicking and demagogy, but I don't know. Still, the whole issue is complex, so, at the moment I won't just take your opinion for fact.

I was "conveniently" explaining the evils of Free Trade, because it is easier, to suggest that there may be evils with NAFTA. If you are more specific what concerns you about his positions on NAFTA, we could talk about those, but again, bear in mind that I am not assuming wholesale defense of any candidacy

Khorgano said...

" Eddie said...

I think that if you get to know better what are the personal qualities of Obama, and about his political positions too, it may happen that you could change your opinion.... Obama is persuasive regarding things that I strongly disagree with, like the role of Religion; not just because he is a good talker, but because he is a good thinker: The propositions are intelligent, practical, not easily dismissed taken as a whole."

I respect your opinions and feelings about the situation, but to trust and support a politician because they are likable, articulate, intelligent and persuasive are horrible reasons to like them. If you don't remember, millions of Europeans were infatuated with a young idealist named Hitler who possessed all those qualities. (Note: I'm not comparing Obama to Hitler, just that those are bad reasons to like a politician). You even admit that his policies can be dangerous

"I certainly see some of Obama's propositions as capable of unleashing a nightmarish crisis, but in the end I know, first hand, may I say, how intelligent the guy actually is, that eases my worries"

I have no doubt he is an intelligent person with admirable personal qualities, but don't let that blind you to the policies. You bring up Health Care as a problem and that only the rich can afford with great expense and hardship to the lower class. That's true, because it's a broken system. I agree that something must be done, but Nationalizing the industry is not the answer, that's the problem. If it's nationalized, then who pays for it? The gov't only gets money from tax revenue, borrowing or defecit spending. Meaning, we as a public pay for it directly through taxes, or indirectly through Inflation.

Let's analyze Health Care in detail shall we? Giving everyone health care coverage is not a solution, it is treating a symptom of a much bigger problem. It does nothing to stop the runaway inflation and maligned cost structure of the industry. Health care is currently broken by heavy socialist underpinnings, a large dose of Corporatism and heavy regulation without a semblance of free market conditions. No wonder it's broken.

Nationalizing it fixes nothing, but it can be fixed with 2 very simple and fundamental constitutional ideas. Personal responsibility and free markets.

1st: End all welfarism. If you have to go to the hospital you pay for it. End of story. You may argue that this hurts poorer people, but as you'll see, once the cost structure is fixed and prices come down, it's more affordable for the poor, insurance premiums go down and then most (if not all) can begin to afford it. Today, too many hospitals are burdened by people unwilling or unable to pay, which only drives costs up further for people who can pay. It's a systemic problem. You may also argue that it's inhumane to not treat someone who cannot pay, but what happens when those hospitals go out of business due to the hand-outs. This is already happening.

2nd: Privatize everything. Hospitals and Dr's are now in direct competition with each other. No longer are patients funneled to them through locked in HMO deals with a short list. Dr's now compete for patients, hell they may even have to advertise. Now that they are in business for themselves, it's sink or swim on their own. This forces them to increase efficiency and eliminate waste. Not only does this improve customer service, but it improves the cost structure. Also, now that Dr's are competing for business, market competition allows it to drive down prices. Quality also improves because a Dr known for shoddy work won't be in business long.

3rd. A major cost for Dr's is malpractice insurance. Well, personal responsibility can either eliminate or greatly reduce this cost. No longer will people sue for malpractice, but instead enter into a contract with their Dr (something not allowed under law currently). Malpractice represents much less than 1% of all patient outcomes, yet the insurance amounts to a significant portion of the cost. To eliminate this, patients and Dr's agree on a policy based on their risk tolerance for the procedure at hand. If it is a relatively simple operation and low risks, you may choose to not have any coverage. If it is something more serious, a patient and Dr can agree on an amount (ie. $10,000 or even $1,000,000 etc..) but the point is, the cost is elective based on personal circumstances. The Dr has just as much a vested interest (arguably) in the successful outcome of a procedure as the patient since their career will also depend on it.

Now, when all of these market forces are in place, the costs will naturally and quickly come down, and it will begin to operate like EVERY OTHER FREE MARKET.

The answer is not "More Government please", it is and always has been "We the People". You say that you ascribe to Libertarian principles, but are apparently willing to concede to socialism in this respect. I say that is a fallacy and dangerous. Socialism is a cancer (no pun intended) to Liberty and must be removed. If we just allow the market to work, it will.

This same principle will also fix Education, Energy, Housing etc... we just need to regain our confidence and get rid of the government and I'm sorry, Obama is not that answer.

Eddie said...

"to trust and support a politician because [his positions] are likable, articulate, intelligent and persuasive are horrible reasons" Why would you support a politician, then? You are wrong. Political systems tend to be extremely inefficient among other things because of the lack of coordination of the people pursuing their wildly contradictory individual interests; when there is a politician that is a good communicator to align people towards common goals, it tends to happen that things improve, by mere virtue of people acting with coordination. I again agree with you that the agreement may be based on terrible objectives like it happened with Hitler, Stalin, etc., but then you have to see the message or the policies themselves, that do not involve hatred or fanaticism. I personally agree with most of Obama's positions, disagree and strongly disagree with quite a few of them, but I respect them in the sense that he has proven that those things I disagree with may be viable.

When I say that some of his policies may unleash a crisis, I am also saying that any profound transformation involves risks. On the whole, I am saying that I don't have problems to trust his judgement: He has proven again and again how smart he is, he has succeeded where I was nearly sure he was going to fail, and his intentions are good.

"Let's analyze Health Care in detail shall we?" --- Well, no. I disagree 100% from the start: I am very convinced that the only sensible approach towards health care is universal free coverage, we could be writing treatises ad infinitum, and that may be good use of our time, but I just don't want to do it; although since I claim to be Libertarian, and come up with this, I think I should explain why that is not a contradiction:

I believe in market solutions to economic problems, but when people needs health care, I don't think markets are a solution, among other things because:
A) For me, if governments have one role, that would be to guarantee the equality of opportunities. It is like the principle that every person's vote is as valuable as any other, that it doesn't matter how rich or poor a person is, the law confers the same rights; in the same sense I believe that the government should make strive to guarantee equality of opportunities, from there, everyone must have access to adequate education; in the same sense that in principle the government should provide the same level of protection from violence and crime, it should provide the same level of protection from diseases and ailments.
B) There is disparity of information: Neither the patient nor the doctors may understand as much about medical conditions as the doctors, so, both patients and governments are at the mercy of specialists. The current health system in the U.S. is the most expensive in the world while the population is among the sickest of the developed world for no coincidence: The impairment of information has been exploited by the health industry to maximize both disease and care costs. When the government is the one who pays the bill, the incentive to prevent diseases appears, and societies become healthier. I can't help but laugh at how ignorant you must be to repeat the propositon that malpractice lawsuits are out of control: the only mechanism that patients have to repair some of the damage that the information impairment produces would, in a system broken precisely because of information impairment, be very notorious, so, rather than see it as what it is, a symptom of a greater problem, you see it as the problem itself. Do away with malpractice lawsuits: What do you end up with? worst information impairment.
C) Take another example: AIDS: Do we have an actual *cure* for this disease? -- No. We have treatments, horribly expensive treatments. I have been speculating for more than 20 years that since the health industry does not have any incentive to actually cure AIDS, but has every incentive to devise treatments that turn patients into patients dependent on treatment for life, that health industry won't invent a cure, but will invent expensive treatments. Think about it: If you want cures to diseases, you want universal health care so that governments have an incentive to fund research to actually cure diseases, otherwise, you would have people dependent on treatments. Market solutions in the realm of health operate just the same as in the rest of the world: Rather than having very cheap shaving razors that last a lifetime, a goal perfectly feasible with modern techniques, we have discardable razors designed to rust fairly quick after first use, just to maximize the profits of the producers of razors.

I could go on, but I think I have showed that you can be distrustful of Market propositions and otherwise Libertarian at the same time.

Khorgano said...

Eddie, I must thank you for a well-thoughtout and engaging discussion. It's not often that I meet people who are interested and capable of carrying on a meaningful and intelligent debate, much less effectively articulate their position.

Just a few points of clarification and discussion and then we may just have to "agree to disagree".

Certainly, obtaining and marching towards a common goal is admirable indeed, but what exactly is the problem of people "wildly persuing their contradictory individual interests". You cannot possibly claim to be truly Libertarian and believe such nonsense. Freedom by its very essence permits that. You readily admit it can lead to a dangerous path based on terrible objectives (ala Hitler, Stalin), but who is to say what our ideal objectives are? Obama may certainly have the qualifications and vision to lead us down a righteous path, but once the system is in place, who is to ensure his successor will not? It has been demonstrated time-and-time again, Government must not be trusted with this power, because even if used with "good intentions" it will ultimately be abused and undermine Liberty. The US Constitution was designed for the very purpose of restraining the power of the government. Not increase it. Now, as far as uniting people towards a common goal, I'm sure Obama would have a much better chance at that than Bush does now, but I fear that our country is far too partisan to ever be more than 50% united...

Now, on to the meat. You claim it is only "sensible" to have free health care yet fail to even address my primary concern. It is certainly not "Free" if the government is paying for it. To reiterate, anytime the government spends money it has to come from somewhere. Namely Taxes or Debt. Either way, we as a people pay for it directly in Taxes or through Inflation. There is no "Free".

No where in our constitution is anyone obligated to pay remittance for someone else's benefit. Whether or not we as a society have a moral and ethical obligation to provide health care for others is an entirely different debate. However, to even propose that such an idea is not infringing liberty is preposterous. It most certainly does, and the only way something like this could ever be constitutional is to in fact make it constitutional. Neither you or I can mandate what people are required to do on behalf of someone else, but if "We the People" were to voluntarily give up this freedom for the greater good (something I'm not necessarily opposed to, but would approach with trepidation) and then ratify and amend the constitution, it would be appropriate. To assert otherwise is wrong.

As to your other points?
Point A, I agree with you fully.
Point B: There is certainly an "information gap", but that would exist free market or not. I agree that it is a noble goal to address this and Gov't may have a place in acheiving it, but I don't see how they can effectively mandate or enforce it. As far as malpractice? allow me to clarify (hey, it made sense in my head when I wrote it ;)). I don't mean to outlaw all malpractice suits. If someone is a victim of wrecklessness, negligence or even malevolence, there should certainly be civil and even criminal retort. However, all too often, Dr's and hospitals walk a fine line and are subjected to frivilous and unfounded accusations due to outcomes that were either complications of circumstance or something outside their control, and trial lawyers are always chomping at the bit to take on anyone with perceived deep pockets. If people were allowed to enter into a contract, none of that would occur.

Part C: I agree that the system may look like a Cartel, but do you honestly believe that no one is working on a cure for AIDS? Sure, it may look like a gravy train, but the number of people that have AIDS are so small that due to supply/demand it necessitates high costs. That being said, do you honestly believe that no one would want to find a cure (This goes for any disease). Imagine how profitable it would be if you were the first company to create a vaccine for AIDS! You could supply everyone in the world with such a product and even all future generations, it would be a cash cow far exceeding the few-and-far-between that makeup "Patients dependant upon treatment for Life" as you say.

Either way, I didn't mean for this to be so long, but I'm glad we had this discussion. Good day

Eddie said...

"what exactly is the problem of people "wildly persuing their contradictory individual interests"":

Inherently, there is no problem whatsoever, I just said that wherever there is leadership that inspires people to act coherently, that people tend to accomplish their goals. Those goals may be apocaliptic, though, no disagreement here.

"Obama may certainly have the qualifications and vision to lead us down a righteous path, but once the system is in place, who is to ensure his successor will not?"

I think I now understand better what your worries are: When I have been speaking about Obama being capable to inspire the people to pursue worthy goals, you are concerned with Obama installing a system that coerces people to pursue the goals of the President, so, that Obama is smart and well intentioned is no guarantee that the system he installs will not become an instrument of tyranny. Did I get that right? There is a common saying in Spanish: "El camino del Infierno está empedrado de buenas intenciones" or "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" I do agree with.

But I have good news for you, Libertarians left and right consider Obama a moderate Libertarian. Visit this 1-March NY Times oped by Jeffrey Rosen on this subject. In that regard, I think you will find relieving that Senator Obama believes in bottom-up development of civil liberties, rather than mandated or coerced enforcement. Perhaps I should just quote the oped to explain [ emphasized sections by me ]:

Mr. Obama, [...] is not a knee-jerk believer in the old-fashioned liberal view that courts should unilaterally impose civil liberties protections on unwilling majorities. His formative experiences have involved arguing for civil liberties in the legislatures rather than courts, and winning over skeptics on both sides of the political spectrum, as he won over the police and prosecutors in Chicago.
As a former grass-roots activist, Mr. Obama understands the need to make the case for civil liberties in the political arena. At a time when America’s civil-libertarian tradition has been embattled at home and abroad, his candidacy offers a unique opportunity.

It's ok that you call me on the imprecision of me saying "universal free care", of course I meant "government paid universal care". Of course that the money has to come from somewhere, that is, taxes. Of course that is expensive. I agree that the U.S. constitution does not force people to pay for the care of others. I still prefer a system that imposes the "tyranny" of paying for other people's health care over a system that does not. I think Senator Obama may inspire a lot of people to (apparently) sacrifice a little bit (paying for universal care that others enjoy) for the common good (of having a freer society). Again we agree that this can be approached with the best of intentions and still create the most awful monster of "stalinistic" health care.

"Part C: I agree that the system may look like a Cartel, but do you honestly believe that no one is working on a cure for AIDS? [...] Imagine how profitable it would be if you were the first company to create a vaccine for AIDS!"

Imagine how profitable it is not for a company to produce lifetime-durable cheap razor blades, because they have had the techniques to do so for over 50 years. To answer your question, not only I honestly believe no one (of significance) is working on really curing AIDS, I would say, furthermore, that for any practical purposes, no real science is being done in the world. Scientists and sciences have prostituted to the point of becoming mere propaganda instruments of governments and corporations. It is a problem of a citizenry less capable to discern truth from bullshit, a problem of a citizenry less interested in the fundamental questions and more demanding of practical benefits from research, and a problem of increased economic scales needed for fundamental research. Is the world warming up?: Some people has interests in a positive answer, and fund research that supports this thesis. Some people has interests in the negative answer, and fund research that supports the opposite thesis. Japan conducts officially sanctioned "scientific expeditions to study marine mammals" in which they slaughter whales whose meat end up in their supermarkets. Is Linux cheaper than Windows? Microsoft funded Forrester Research to say that it isn't. Are the genetically modified seeds good for people? who knows?: They are engineered to not spawn fertile plants, so that the farmer is forced to buy new seeds every generation. They may provide apparently improved nutritional qualities, but deplete the soils worse than historical crops. They may deteriorate the nutritional quality to look better in the supermarket. And the people is virtually tortured with a cacophony of propaganda that claims that things are safe or unsafe. When I was a kid, integrity still was an important component of science, today, that is impractical, to get money from grants the conclusions of the research project must precede the research itself, if during research the evidence disproves the conclusions the project set up to prove, though luck, either the project terminates, or the project becomes to disprove the evidence. So, coming back to your question: I do affirm that when a real cure for AIDS is developed, it will be developed NOT by the health cartel, but by underfunded researchers on the fringe of the system, and I don't think it will happen anytime soon because the work on retrovirus is still too expensive for independents and the cartel is blocking independents through things like patenting even the DNA of living organisms. Were you aware of the Dendreon scandal, in which a government entity conspired with the cancer cartel to block the approval of a drug that probably improves the immune resistance to prostate cancer? It would appall you to discover so many diseases and nasty problems that civilization has already found perfectly good solutions for that are not pursued because they just don't further the interests of groups that today are powerful. I am giving you this lecture to emphasize that the whole world is in desperate need of guidance, that is, inspiring leadership. Don't take it as a "Prophet" (that will be all bullshit and hypocrisy), but leadership that will appeal to reason rather than basic instincts for public policy matters, that would empower people to also approach things through reason rather than hype, fear, ignorance. Whether I agree or not with the specific propositions is less important to the way they would be discussed. It helps Obama to fit that profile that he has not sold wholesale to any lobby, at most, flirted with a dubious character of Chicago, Rezco, and being from here, I have a much better perspective on the subject.

Khorgano said...

"you are concerned with Obama installing a system that coerces people to pursue the goals of the President, so, that Obama is smart and well intentioned is no guarantee that the system he installs will not become an instrument of tyranny. Did I get that right?"

Bingo, it's a slippery slope that should not be tempted. There's obviously nothing preventing any president from attempting this, but a candidate known for socialist policies is, I believe, far more inclined to attempt such a thing.

"I agree that the U.S. constitution does not force people to pay for the care of others. I still prefer a system that imposes the "tyranny" of paying for other people's health care over a system that does not."

And this is where we will fundamentally disagree. I will freely admit that there may be things in this life that may be more important than personal liberty, but paying for someone else's health care isn't necessarily that. While I tend to shun it, it is a debate that I have yet to fully reconcile within myself. It's one thing to pay for someone who is a good person, trying to live a good life suffering from a rare malady, and it's quite another to have to pay for some druggies Overdose or some other behavioral choices. Where do you draw the line on "Government funded Health Care" and who determines it.

Finally, onto your last point. Again, I agree that there are people with motives that are not entirely altruistic, but it doesn't mean we should mandate private entities to work or research new medicine. Who determines how much to spend? How much is too little? How much is wasteful or diminishing returns? What diseases should take priority? It is obviously a very complex matter and I just don't see how the Government can effectively balance the issues better than private industry. No matter which avenue is persued, someone will be arguing bias, favoritism or neglect. It makes it even more difficult when few in congress and executive positions have the technical expertise to make sound strategic decisions, even if they rely on specialized advisors.

You may argue that the research isn't happening fast enough, but throwing money at a problem rarely fixes it (Just look at our curent National Defense). A quick Google search of "AIDS Vaccine" shows dozens of vaccines at various stages of clinical trial. Will it happen eventually, probably (assuming there really is a cure), but there's no reason to believe that government will achieve that goal faster. Even if the solution ultimately comes from "underfunded researchers on the fringe of the system".

Anonymous said...

"I believe in market solutions to economic problems, but when people needs health care..."

Health care is an economic problem! The issue is cost. So the question (which is debatable)is: Is would the system have lower overall cost by naitonalizing it or would it be cheaper in a free market.

This is really a question of personal philosophy - some will argue that nationalizing gives it economies of scale and will thus make it cheaper. Others will say free markets will find the most efficient solution as once something is nationalized, innovation will be stifled, and there is no reason to find more efficient solutions (not to mention the overhead bureaucracy cost in administering it).

If you look at a government run programs like say Medicare, the answer to whether nationalizing it would be better is I think pretty clear. Medicare costs are exploding at far greater than the rate of inflation, so I don't see a program which would be much bigger in size, could be rationally expected to fare any better (in fact I think it would be worse)

As for malpractice there is a simple solution, for suits that are deemed to be frivolous, the plaintiff lawyer pays the defendant triple the costs the defendant incurred in its defense against the suit. This would essentially end the 'lotto ticket' mentality that most plaintiff lawyers have when they bring these cases on contingencies and allow serious cases (which need to be brought) to go forward, while weeding out the 'let's take a chance' suits. This would also have the side benefit of freeing up the court systems a bit for other things. (In fact I think this should apply to all civil suits, not just malpractice suits)

This of course will never happen in the US as the trial lawyer lobby in America is far and away the most powerful lobby (much more so then the much publicized gun and tobacco lobbies).

Anonymous said...

"Yes, it applies. In Latin America, most countries define laws that give great privileges to oligarchies and restrict what the common people can do, as a result of that..."

Latin America = Central America?
NAFTA is only Canada, US, Mexico (what most folks call North America), you could look it up on wiki if you'd like.

But thanks for the misinformation. Anything to help the point? Again do not assume world trade equals NORTH AMERICAN TRADE. Do not assume North American Free Trade = loss of Ohio jobs... It is not good to generalize and blur things to support/make a point and prey on people's fears and misconceptions. So how again is NAFTA hurting the US?

Anonymous said...

"I tend to see Religion not much more than as a problem that engenders intolerance and a handicap for intelligence and progress, but reading Obama's accounts on the subject, about the significance and value of spiritualness, about how Churches could help positive social change"

Not saying he agrees with his church's views in certain areas anymore, but you have to wonder how someone who went to the same church and had the same pastor for 20 years was blissfully unaware of some of the, shall we say, extremist views put forward?

Again not assigning those beliefs to Obama, but this has to cast a little uneasiness about his judgement, no?