Nixon's plan was actually better than anything we have on the table right now, and organized labor quashed it because they didn't feel it went far enough.
In fact, the Obama health-reform package Kennedy supported in his last days is similar to one Kennedy helped defeat when proposed by President Richard Nixon. If anything, the Obama plan is more conservative. Nixon would have mandated that all employers offer coverage to their employees, while creating a subsidized government insurance program for all Americans that employer coverage did not reach. It would take a miracle to pass such a plan today—a public insurance plan and an employer mandate are two provisions of the proposals now in Congress that are most in doubt.
Passing the bill as it now stands seems to me to be a case of not letting go of a bird in the hand.
One of Kennedy's great regrets in life was not figuring out a way to cut a deal with Richard Nixon over his proposal to provide universal healthcare in 1971. He changed his mind in 1973 and came close to reaching agreement with Nixon, but by then AMA opposition combined with the distraction of Watergate took it off the table, not to return for another two decades. Steven Pearlstein provides a capsule summary here.
So you really hardly have to guess here. Kennedy had vivid personal memories of rejecting a healthcare deal because it wasn't good enough, and then watching the moment pass and having reform die utterly. If he were alive today, there's no question that he'd be fighting to pass the current bill, warts and all.
As for me, I mostly agree with The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan. I give Obama his timeline and a troop surge, but after that if there's no real improvement it's time to go.
Right now, dithering around in Afghanistan with a half-assed effort is not working. We have two choices: pull out or increase support.
Civilian deaths in Afghanistan from US and NATO airstrikes nearly tripled from 2006 to 2007, with recent deadly airstrikes exacerbating the problem and fuelling a public backlash, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today. The report also condemns the Taliban’s use of “human shields” in violation of the laws of war.
The 43-page report, “‘Troops in Contact’: Airstrikes and Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan,” analyzes the use of airstrikes by US and NATO forces and resulting civilian casualties, particularly when used to make up for the lack of ground troops and during emergency situations. Human Rights Watch found few civilian deaths resulted from planned airstrikes, while almost all deaths occurred in unplanned airstrikes.
“Rapid response airstrikes have meant higher civilian casualties, while every bomb dropped in populated areas amplifies the chance of a mistake,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Mistakes by the US and NATO have dramatically decreased public support for the Afghan government and the presence of international forces providing security to Afghans."
In other words, being spread too thin and forced to rely on airstrikes and drones is deadly. More boots on the ground could mean less civilian and military casualties.
I am also concerned about the safety and human rights of the Afghan women. If we pull out now and the Taliban regain control over this fragile new government, what happens to the women who have become advocates for their gender? Afghan schoolgirls have had acid thrown in their face for attending school. Under the Taliban women were not allowed to go to school. But under the American occupation the situation has dramatically improved for Afghan girls who want to get education.
And yet if there is one unambiguously positive change that the American-led enterprise has brought it is the education of girls. In 2001, only a million Afghan children were enrolled in school, all of them boys. The education of girls was banned. Today, approximately 7 million Afghan children attend school, of which 2.6 million, or roughly a third, are girls.
Let's say we pull out now and the Taliban take over. Who do you think will be first in line for stoning, jail, and murder?
Pull out, get out, give up is not the way to solve Afghanistan’s problems,” Afghan parliamentarian Shukria Barakzai told The Daily Beast. She and several other women leaders say that while they are not convinced Afghanistan needs more American soldiers, there is no question the future of their country depends on those forces already there.
“We want the troops here,” said Huma Safi, a program manager with Women for Afghan Women, which runs women’s shelters and family counseling centers in three provinces of Afghanistan. “Women are in danger already; if the troops go, the people who will be most affected will be women and children.”
Aziza, the soccer-ball entrepreneur, echoes this concern.
“We could not be here if the troops were not here,” she said, referring to the growing number of Afghan businesswomen, educators, and activists who have taken on more visible roles in support of their communities since 2001. “We need troops here until we can sustain our own military.”
According to a press release from the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, many of the new recruits turn to the Talban as a last resort to escape unemployment and crushing poverty.
For many of Afghanistan's youth, the only way out of poverty is through the Taliban or in the poppy and opium trade in the country's southern region. "I couldn't find a job anywhere," he said. "So I had to join the Taliban. They give me money for my family expenditures. If I left the Taliban, what else could I do?" said 19 year old Jaan Agha. "I couldn't find a job anywhere, so I had to join the Taliban. They give me money for my family expenditures. If I left the Taleban, what else could I do?
And for the record, for those Obama supporters who feel "betrayed" by his stance on Afghanistan. Here is a 2008 New York Times op-ed in which Obama lays out his plan to pull back from Iraq and focus on the conflict in Afghanistan.
Just a humble blogger burning the midnight oil in the hopes of getting our country back on track....
The views that I express here are my own and are not to be construed as being in any way representative of the Democratic Party or the Obama administration.
