Originally Posted by spence
No, it just means the subject has to be looked at in a broader context.
You're demonstrating what I said. Dismiss the smaller part by referring to "a broader context." "Context" may give "perspective" which can be trumped by an even broader context--the conflicting perspectives resulting from different points of view. Arguments about over-arching "contexts" can, and usually do, hide the "little" or "minor" issues. Broader "context" is a convenient method of dismissing specific problems that cast a bad light on administration.
On the other hand, it is the attention to the specific details, specific problems, which result in good administration and the smooth operation of the "broader context."
This myopic focus our political system seems to have makes any effort towards real policy impossible.
How are you differing "policy" from "real policy"? It seems that efforts toward policy, real or otherwise, are being made apace by this administration. Perhaps, you are in favor of unimpeded administration which mandates policy into reality by fiat? That might be how a corporation or small business can operate, and would work well if fiat policy accurately resulted in the desired success. If it was unsuccessful, the business would fail. Or bumble along waiting for another good "policy." In any case, one business in the myriad of businesses, appearing and disappearing, succeeding and failing, would just be a part of the "broader context" of the nation's economy. A healthy economy not only can withstand the singular failures, it requires the diverse and often risky experimentation in order to evolve and grow.
But the success of any single business depends on attention to details. And masking small failures by looking only at the broader context can be, and probably would be, fatal.
And a political system has some similar characteristics. If a political entity is not part of a larger system, a "broader context," but rather subsumes all political entities and becomes the sole context, fiat policy is not only tyrannical, it will, sooner or later eff-up, and the failure will be massive and corrosive to society as a whole.
So if by "real policy" you mean that which is dictated by a centralized all-powerful government unopposed by "myopic focus" on the system, perhaps you are too ambitious for our health and good. Focus on whether we should be dictated to by unopposed central bureaucrats, supposed experts, or whether we should have a "broader context" of governance comprised of many different units, as well as checks and balances, such as that "old-fashioned" constitutional federalism provides, would be paying attention to the details of good government. It would certainly allow for smaller failures as models to avoid as well as various successes to be emulated in the arena of the States and localities being the "laboratories of democracy"--just as businesses are in the "broader context" of economy.
The "myopic focus" on our political system is about freedom, growth, and evolution. This centralized Progressive administrative system which you seem to hanker for and which dislikes that "myopic focus" pretends to be about some egalitarian world of social justice ordered by fiat. One great difference between them is that the first is about individuals comprising the "broader context" of society, and the second is about the broader context of society subsuming and dismissing the importance of the individual. Another difference is that the first is a natural, corrective, process, and the second is a utopian contradiction. Fiat dictated by the few for the many is neither egalitarian, nor just.
Funny, for the benefits and limitations being so specific and spelled out I still have a terrible time trying to determine what's actually covered.
Well, that's an improvement over your trouble with the Constitution which you've read a few times and can't figure out at all. Perhaps, that's why you prefer fiat dictation. In that there is no need to understand, just obey.
Are people really getting what they pay for if they don't even know what they're getting?
So . . . then . . . you don't actually believe that ignorance is bliss?
I don't know if the ACA was intended to address VA issues.
Cost cutting comes from reforms more than just economies of scale. For instance one of the big changes the reform makes is place the emphasis on the value of care rather than the volume. Doing so has the potential to eliminate a tremendous amount of waste while improving quality.
I remember reading an article in HBR (by Porter?) some years ago stating exactly this.
-spence
|