tdaxp

Sentora, M. (2007). Giuliani seeks to transform U.S. health care coverage. New York Times. August 1, 2007. Available online: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/us/politics/01giuliani.html.

Neither his plan nor the article covering it are perfect, but hard not to like this:

Rudolph W. Giuliani on Tuesday called for transforming the way health care coverage is provided in the United States, advocating a voluntary move from the current employer-based system to one that would grant substantial tax benefits to people who buy their own insurance.

..

And to help the poor or others struggling to afford health insurance, Mr. Giuliani said he would support vouchers and tax refunds, but he gave no details about how he would pay for them.

Mr. Giuliani’s vision stands in stark contrast to the plans offered by the leading Democratic candidates. Both Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina have proposed bolstering the employer-based system by requiring corporations to buy insurance for their workers, and raising taxes or rolling back tax cuts to increase subsidies for health care for the poor.

Corporatism, the idea that companies should be simultaneously protected by the government but expected to fund welfare societies for their workers and dependents, is one of those bad ideas that are just hard to killed. From China's State-Owned Companies to Detroit's dinosaurs, too many enterprises and too many workers have been dragged down because governments made the stupid prediction that large companies cannot possibly go bankrupt.

There needs to be some form of universal healthcare, and it should be at least funded by the government through the income tax. Calls for "employer-based healthcare," like from the junior Senator from Illinois and former junior Senator from North Carolina, are steps in the wrong direction.

Tom Barnett and I agree on a lot (such as the use f private contractors to counter the excessive relative value given to individual lives in public discourse), but he's wrong in his defense of Senator Barack Obama and his attacks on Senator Clinton (see posts from July 28 and July 25). Specifically, in a recent Democratic Party debate Obama said that he would freely meet with rogue leaders without preconditions, while Clinton emphasized the need for care and concern when meeting with rogue states.

Meetings with high-level American officials are goods. They benefit not only the regimes hosting the officials, but those factions within the regimes seen as orchestrating it. The opposite is also true: when American officials are too busy to visit some country or organization, the snub hurts not only the would-be host but those elements that are seen as having "lost" or "depended on" the visit.

It's is foolish to pretend that high-level American officials have an infinite amount of time and energy, or that as much time as possible should be spent visiting our enemies instead of our friends, "on the fence states," or even doing the other jobs they are employed to do.

Barnett's defense of Obama is wrong, and I fear it has a lot more to do with exasperation against Senator Clinton and the "baby boomers" in general (or perhaps the physical pain Tom's enduring) than with the validity of Obama's statements or even Barack himself.

For a more reasonable analysis of Obama's statement, see zenpundit's Obama's lack of sea-legs in foreign policy.

Update: A social faux paus! As I'm complaining, Tom is complimenting!