Proposals like Stuart Baker's thoughtful-but-inadequate answer to our health care woes strike me as a bit less dangerous than some progressives assume. What Butler has is the sort of non-progressive policy that makes sense as an incremental measure to progressives. Given our biases, it's plausible that a political system oriented towards the status quo will falter in pursuit of real change and adopt this milder alternative. But the problem with something like the Butler plan -- at least unless industry adopts it -- is that it lacks an affirmative constituency. It's 30 percent of a progressive proposal rather than 65% of a conservative proposal. And it's complicated, not easy to explain, and not a particularly good policy with which to bludgeon liberals. It would have to be a policy compromise, rather than a political gambit.
So it's hard to see where it's support will come from. I tend to be more worried about the thoughtless proposals from Giuliani types which are created to a) attract industry money, b) facilitate attacks on Democratic proposals, and c) make it sound like the politician has an answer even if they've got nothing at all. A world where Butler's proposal could get enacted is a world where a better proposal will get enacted. A world where Giuliani's BS gets a respectful hearing is much more worrisome.
