From the opinion pages of the WSJ comes this withering synopsis of POTUS Obama's relentless (and ultimately self-defeating) pursuit of a Progressive Tranformation Of America (tm). In short, it's turned out pretty much as you'd expect.
It really is extraordinary how opaque he was (and remains) to the practical and the political implications of his actions, and thus how utterly he has squandered what could have been a most auspicious moment for him.
Oddly, my tear ducts register no activity at all.
Showing posts with label Obamacare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obamacare. Show all posts
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Monday, March 29, 2010
Pig Escapes Poke, Flips Bird
[by Mr.Hengist]
I’ve been reluctant to weigh in on the Obamacare debate for a variety of reasons. For one thing, healthcare as a topic is dull and complex; almost entirely outside what I find interesting and important. My interests in the sciences do not generally include biology, and I am much more interested in geopolitics, as opposed to domestic political issues.
For another, it seemed too far into the realm of the hypothetical to weigh in on a debate in which the substance, that is, the proposed legislation, was in a constant state of flux. Those in favor of the bill(s) argued for the merits of provisions that ultimately might or might not have been included in the final version, and the same may have been said of the arguments of those in opposition. Now that the bill has been finalized, passed, and signed into law, the uncertainties have been largely resolved, and it is at least possible to discuss the concrete reality of what has been done. The pig is out of the poke for all to behold.
My research has been repeatedly confounded between the legalese text of the law – which is virtually incomprehensible to a layman such as myself – and the partisan bogosity salesmanship of the Left (and, to some degree, the angry obfuscations of the Right). The Left has a point when they mock the Right for complaining that legislators haven’t read a bill before they voted to pass it. Just pick any spot, try to make heads or tails of it, and you’ll concede the point. What the Right means to say, and should say, is that the legislators don’t know what’s in the bill before they vote for it, and that’s a valid criticism. Complex legislation needs to be fixed and unchanging for a period of time to allow for it to be subjected to public scrutiny. For this reason candidate Obama made a promise to allow five days of sunlight on a bill before he would sign it into law (and we now know he lied about that – no two ways about it, Liberals: he lied like a rug and you were the rubes who believed him).
On the snake-oil salesmanship side, I found claptrap like this [PDF] on the Senate website under “Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans”
On the other hand, we have spin from the right, such as the catchy “death panels” term from Sarah Palin. The actual criticism she was making was in reference to the state-mandated consultations with elderly patients about their “end-of-life” options in a bill that was intended to cut medical costs. She connected the dots and came up with a hangman, which made for some pretty weak tea (and those were some mangled metaphors, but let’s not dwell on that).
Other pundits of the Right have pointed out that, inasmuch as the examples we’ve seen of government health care in such places as Canada and the United Kingdom do indeed ration their care, and/or put their patients on waiting lists for diagnosis and treatment that can last months, even years, we should expect the same from a single-payer system. That’s true enough, but absent the ability to buy health care insurance independently, as much as you can afford, rationing is another term for limited coverage. Limited policies don’t cover everything, which is what makes them more affordable – nothing new here.
At any rate, the best summary I’ve found to-date is here.
It is therefore with varying degrees of certainty that I can share my thoughts and opinions. While that would usually preclude my sharing them publicly, this is different because, as VPOTUS Joe Biden so eloquently put it, "This is a big f’ing deal.” (Stay classy, Joe.) Without further preamble, here are some of my thoughts on what was proposed during the past year.
Pre-Existing Conditions
The “pre-existing condition” requirement bars insurance companies from “discriminating” on the basis of pre-existing or current health status. Insurance companies are not “discriminating” when they decline to foot the bill for people who walk in the door and declare, “I have cancer – fix it!” Nothing has so clearly illustrated the abject foolish ignorance of Liberals in this debate than their insistence that the free-market insurance industry cover pre-existing medical conditions without exception, and at rates comparable to those given the healthy. In my readings of the national discussion on the left and right I have been left slack-jawed in amazement at the Left.
This is not terribly complicated. The insurance industry business model is predicated on risk-pooling. Your rate is determined by your risk of disease or injury. Insurance companies use actuarial tables (i.e., historical data from their past experience) and disclosed risk factors (as in, “do you smoke?”, or “do you work with dangerous chemicals?” and the like) to determine your rate.
People with pre-existing conditions are no longer at risk of their condition: they already have it. Insurance provides for financial protection against the possibility of misfortune, but it will not provide compensation for misfortune that has already befallen you, so you can’t, for example, insure yourself against a house fire after your house has burned down. In reality, the money for treatment must come from somewhere, and in the health insurance industry business model those funds come from long years of premiums from healthy people. The insured can get treatment in excess of their premiums if they have the misfortune of being stricken, but only because the rest of the healthy pool is paying for it. The risk the insurance companies take is that you’ll do exactly that, whereas the risk the insured take is that they’ll have paid premiums for years and ultimately realize no benefit.
What Liberals are demanding reflects their Marxist, or perhaps, child-like understanding of the insurance industry. Insurance companies are not like Santa Clause. They have balance sheets. The money that comes in must cover the money that goes out or the company ceases to exist. There are no elves working in a North Pole workshop to fashion drugs and crutches for the needy.
Insurance policies are business transactions based on the risks inherent in a mutually unknown future. To demand that the insurance companies pay for pre-existing conditions without reflecting those increased costs in premiums is to demand that they finance an entitlement program, and as such it is completely unreasonable, but makes perfect sense if the aim is to destroy the health insurance industry. To term their legislation as a means by which to “bar discrimination” is just an effort to piggyback on the popular and moral support of anti-discrimination laws against racism and discrimination based on religion or sexual preference.
In order for this phrasing to work we also saw the introduction of the concept that health care is a right. Somehow, and never mind how. Liberals declaring that health care is a right does not make it so, any more than the declaration of little girls that it’s their right to have a pony, no matter how much they really, really want one. Even if it were a right, it does not follow that it is the obligation of insurance companies to foot the bill for pre-existing conditions.
The Public Option
The Public Option has been presented as a means of introducing competition to the market. I’d like to pause here to say that hearing Liberals speak in praise of free market competition is simultaneously amusing and infuriating. When the Left adopts the language of capitalism their words often reflect their misunderstandings and ignorance – or, perhaps equally likely, an attempt to mislead. Although it’s true that states limit the competition between insurance companies and thus limit the choices of consumers, this is clearly an issue of the states’ choice that can be resolved on a state-level basis. Resolving it on a national level would be a simple and not altogether unpalatable fix, and it would have the benefit of being easy and simple. If what they really wanted was more competition then that would be the way to go, and that’s why they didn’t go that way.
The Public Option is neither simple nor easy but it does provide the means by which the private industry can be destroyed by tilting the playing field in favor of the Public Option. Private companies have balance sheets, but the Public Option would be effectively exempt from that necessity. It’s easy enough to illustrate: imagine the premiums charged by the Public Option are insufficient to cover the expense of the program: will Liberals demand that we cover the shortfall with tax dollars? Of course. They might also raise premiums, but it’s the tax subsidy that is a dagger in the gut of private enterprise. By freeing the Public Option from the balance sheets the playing field is tilted against the private sector and can be the means by which the government can and would kill off private enterprise in this sector. The Public Option can outspend private enterprise by virtue of the bottomless pockets of the government which supports it.
Would they do such a thing? Considering the naked hostility Liberals have shown towards the health insurance industry, I’m guessing the answer is: Yes.
Yes they would.
Single Payer
This is the Monopsony Option, which polls very well amongst Liberals. The folks who tout the benefits of “competition” in the insurance market also prefer the stranglehold of a single buyer in that market. This, from the folks who decry the buying power of Wal-Mart; they want that power for the government to wield against the healthcare industry.
With the power to dictate – yes, dictate – price, the government would, as they have promised, extract the lowest possible prices from industry that they can. With less revenue the healthcare industries would be unable to funnel funds into research and development or hire the best employees. The best-case scenario of Single Payer would have the effect of stifling innovation by nearly eliminating the resources necessary for R&D and staffing their positions with people who will work for peanuts.
The worst-case scenario is that it would go further than that and kill off private enterprise in this sector by paying unsustainably low prices for goods and services. Metaphorically, it would be as if the government pushed them right to the edge of a cliff, and with the slightest misfortune of a breeze in the wrong direction, over the cliff they’d go, leaving a statist Liberal government and their supporters tsk-tsk’ing and saying, “Well, that’s just too bad – I guess we’ll have to rely on the government to provide those goods or services, too.”
The rebuttal is that Single Payer would drive down costs by reducing overhead and eliminating profit. Reducing overhead is a something our government is not motivated to do, so they don’t. Inefficiency is almost the inevitable result of government spending. Remember, POTUS Obama has said that the government will reap efficiencies by going after “waste, fraud, and abuse” in existing programs. If the government were motivated to do that, it would have done so already. The fact that there is waste, fraud, and abuse on a massive scale in those programs should act as a valuable object lesson in why we shouldn’t have these kinds of programs in the first place. Leave it to Liberals to draw exactly the wrong conclusion.
As for eliminating profit, it is not surprising that, at the same time that Liberals and Democrats have touted their support of free enterprise and the private sector, they have made plain their abhorrence of profit. I have been struck by the indignation of Liberals, never so plain as in the last few years, that these – or any - corporations make profit. As an industry, and at this time, the insurance business is only modestly profitable, taking in an average of 3.3%, which makes it only the 86th most profitable industry in America. This puts the lie to the assertion from the Left that taking the profit out of the health insurance industry would bring down costs. As an investment, insurance companies have a return on investment worse than some Rewards checking accounts. To define this as excessive greed, as gouging, is to declare that profits are inherently bad on the whole, which is why I say that theirs is a Marxist argument. If the modest profits of the insurance industry are under attack for being excessive then no business is safe from these Marxists.
Taken altogether, it is for the above reasons that I have been opposed to the Democrat “reform” proposals – they were all aimed at one ultimate goal: government takeover of the healthcare industry. But don’t take it from me – take it from Democrats.
Take it from candidate Obama in this longer excerpt.
Knowing that this is their goal, there’s no reason for me to be in favor of whatever incremental gains they can make towards achieving it.
The “47 Million” Deception
Add to that the inflated numbers of how many people would be “helped.” Remember the “47 million” POTUS Obama said were uninsured? Let’s not dwell on the logical chasm that Liberal pundits leapt with a single bound to extend that assertion to mean that 47 million people were without health care. Do you remember when that number magically shrank down to 30 million? Liberals, weren’t you the least bit concerned that, without explanation, POTUS Obama lowered this figure, and that Democrats followed suit? What happened?
Lay it at the feet of Mark Levin, who single-handedly – look, no help from the dogged investigative reporters of the MSM! – broke down the numbers from the Census and revealed the truth: the Democrats were lying.
Many of the people Democrats claim to be “helping” are healthy young adults who have good reason for not spending their money on health insurance. The individual mandate will require them to do just that, so let’s reframe this for what it is: a massive and involuntary transfer of wealth. As candidate Obama told Joe the Plumber, he was going to “spread the wealth around.”
This healthcare giveaway to the poor will have to be paid for by someone, and it’s looking like it’s going to come from taxpayers, cuts in care to seniors, and young people who neither need, nor want, nor can afford insurance, but will have to buy it anyway. Ironically, young people were overwhelmingly supportive of him when he was running for the presidency. So, how do you like your redistributionist Marxist president now, kids?
The Individual Mandate
Is it within the constitutional powers of our federal government to compel the citizenry to buy goods or services from a private enterprise? I honestly don’t know, although it’s true to say that it’s never been done before. The examples given by the Left don’t seem to apply: for example, auto insurance is state-mandated, and besides which it protects others from the damage and injury that might be caused by you, as opposed to the health insurance mandate which protects you from, well, your own financial circumstances. FICA is a compulsory insurance program but it’s not run by private enterprise.
The mandate is necessary to help finance the plan – all those too young or rich to want to buy insurance will be compelled to do so and thus subsidize via premiums the expense outlay of health care for the poor and middle class. Yet, amazingly, although there is a mandate, the IRS can’t do a damn thing if you don’t pay it:
[Update 2010-03-31: OTOH the above might be a misinterpretation, as opinions differ. So it seems the IRS will be able to enforce the mandate. Less debt, more tax collection. Yay.]
Massive new spending and a massive expansion of government
It was bad enough that no sooner had the Congress passed Pay-Go – the requirement that new non-discretionary funding be offset by increased taxes or budget reallocation – than they immediately turned around and exempted an extension to unemployment benefits and COBRA benefits. Let’s grant the debatable merits of the proposal – we’ll let Krugman debate himself on that issue – and focus on the process at work. How can we not assume the worst; that, given the opportunity, power, and desire to simply exempt their handouts from the constraints of a limited budget, they won’t simply do the same, with any program, at any time? Think Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, etc. More specifically, and pressingly, will Obamacare be any different? Put another way, should their budget projections prove to be in error, will there be any going back? Can you imagine the Democrats saying, “We thought it would save us money, but it turns out it’s much more expensive than we thought and it’s going to put us even deeper into debt, so let’s go back to the system we had”?
Nonsense. Never. For Liberals, entitlements programs once enacted are forever. For Congress, trust funds are for raiding, spending limitations are for breaking, and hyperoptimistic budget projections are for suckers, i.e., you.
Let’s be clear: Our country is deeply in debt, and has been for quite some time. The Democrats, from top to bottom, are planning to double that debt over the next ten years. That’s not a prediction, that’s their plan. That’s the plan, based on a best-case scenario, based on their fantasy numbers of a vibrant, growing economy, predictions that have already fallen short of reality. That’s the plan, come hell or high water, and no budget shortfalls will prove sufficient impetus to curtail that plan.
The Democrats have given us a new ginormous monster of an entitlement program. Where will the money come from? Where could it possible come from? Current chair of the Federal Reserve, Bob Bernanke, says the Fed won’t print the dollars to cover the shortfall. I suspect that if he won’t, he’ll be replaced with someone who will. Aside from that they could try to borrow the money, but already the AAA rating of the United States is teetering as the cost of borrowing that money goes up. They can’t possibly cut the budget sufficiently to make up for the shortfall, even if they slashed the DOD down to puny helpless European levels (which is, of course, what the Europeans did to afford their own universal healthcare programs). They could raise taxes – and they will – but the Laffer Curve can only be pushed so far before increases in the tax rate will result in decreases in tax revenues.
Do they care? Does it matter, given that the most optimistic interpretation of their actions is that they’re trying their best to help the economy? That is to say, if their intentions really are good, and this is the best they can do, does it matter whether they really do care? And does anyone remember when the Democrats were outraged at the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush Administration, now dwarfed in comparison to our present Democrat-controlled government?
Or is it their intention to destroy the economy in order to remake it? They could do our economy more harm than they have, and my guess is that they will.
Our present disaster will apparently be eclipsed by a catastrophe. By design, however you look at it, even if you take them at their word that their intentions are as stated and benign. Liberal fantasies of “free” healthcare for everyone, unaffordable in the best of times, crammed down our throats at the worst possible time, in their willful fantasy-world disconnection from fiscal reality, have already sent us skidding into the depths of ruin.
What is to be done?
The Tea Party activists must make their influence felt, starting from the bottom up. The Republicans must stand together on principled financial conservativism and to hell with the social conservatives, and that is admittedly easier said than done. It’s a question, at this early stage, whether the Republicans will capitulate. It’s a real possibility that right-wing constituencies must make clear is unacceptable by any measure.
What I’d like to see happen is for a crushing defeat to the Democrats this November, and the November after that. What I’d like for them to do is to dismantle the socialist state that’s been built up over decades, to crush it. That’s not blustering hyperbole; I really mean it. One of the first acts of POTUS Obama on taking office was to cut off the funding for the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, giving them only enough money to wind it down. Note that he didn’t cut the program – he killed it. Let’s do the same to the cherished social welfare projects of the Left. Repeal Obamacare? Certainly, but we can’t stop there.
We can do the same to such fancies as the NEA. Wind them down and sell off the assets, from the buildings right down the stationary, and to their state employees we’ll give an apple and a roadmap as we send them on their way.
Let the Liberal-Left scream and shout, stamp their little feet, and hold their breath until they’re blue in the face. I don’t care. I want to leave them with nothing, so that if and when they regain power they’ll have to start all over again. From scratch.
I’ve been reluctant to weigh in on the Obamacare debate for a variety of reasons. For one thing, healthcare as a topic is dull and complex; almost entirely outside what I find interesting and important. My interests in the sciences do not generally include biology, and I am much more interested in geopolitics, as opposed to domestic political issues.
For another, it seemed too far into the realm of the hypothetical to weigh in on a debate in which the substance, that is, the proposed legislation, was in a constant state of flux. Those in favor of the bill(s) argued for the merits of provisions that ultimately might or might not have been included in the final version, and the same may have been said of the arguments of those in opposition. Now that the bill has been finalized, passed, and signed into law, the uncertainties have been largely resolved, and it is at least possible to discuss the concrete reality of what has been done. The pig is out of the poke for all to behold.
My research has been repeatedly confounded between the legalese text of the law – which is virtually incomprehensible to a layman such as myself – and the partisan bogosity salesmanship of the Left (and, to some degree, the angry obfuscations of the Right). The Left has a point when they mock the Right for complaining that legislators haven’t read a bill before they voted to pass it. Just pick any spot, try to make heads or tails of it, and you’ll concede the point. What the Right means to say, and should say, is that the legislators don’t know what’s in the bill before they vote for it, and that’s a valid criticism. Complex legislation needs to be fixed and unchanging for a period of time to allow for it to be subjected to public scrutiny. For this reason candidate Obama made a promise to allow five days of sunlight on a bill before he would sign it into law (and we now know he lied about that – no two ways about it, Liberals: he lied like a rug and you were the rubes who believed him).
On the snake-oil salesmanship side, I found claptrap like this [PDF] on the Senate website under “Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans”
"Provides Americans with better coverage and the information they need to make informed decisions about their health insurance."Bereft of specifics these cheerleading summaries have no value.
"Provides better chronic care, with doctors collaborating to provide patient-centered care for the 80 percent of older Americans who have at least one chronic medical condition like high blood pressure or diabetes."
On the other hand, we have spin from the right, such as the catchy “death panels” term from Sarah Palin. The actual criticism she was making was in reference to the state-mandated consultations with elderly patients about their “end-of-life” options in a bill that was intended to cut medical costs. She connected the dots and came up with a hangman, which made for some pretty weak tea (and those were some mangled metaphors, but let’s not dwell on that).
Other pundits of the Right have pointed out that, inasmuch as the examples we’ve seen of government health care in such places as Canada and the United Kingdom do indeed ration their care, and/or put their patients on waiting lists for diagnosis and treatment that can last months, even years, we should expect the same from a single-payer system. That’s true enough, but absent the ability to buy health care insurance independently, as much as you can afford, rationing is another term for limited coverage. Limited policies don’t cover everything, which is what makes them more affordable – nothing new here.
At any rate, the best summary I’ve found to-date is here.
It is therefore with varying degrees of certainty that I can share my thoughts and opinions. While that would usually preclude my sharing them publicly, this is different because, as VPOTUS Joe Biden so eloquently put it, "This is a big f’ing deal.” (Stay classy, Joe.) Without further preamble, here are some of my thoughts on what was proposed during the past year.
Pre-Existing Conditions
The “pre-existing condition” requirement bars insurance companies from “discriminating” on the basis of pre-existing or current health status. Insurance companies are not “discriminating” when they decline to foot the bill for people who walk in the door and declare, “I have cancer – fix it!” Nothing has so clearly illustrated the abject foolish ignorance of Liberals in this debate than their insistence that the free-market insurance industry cover pre-existing medical conditions without exception, and at rates comparable to those given the healthy. In my readings of the national discussion on the left and right I have been left slack-jawed in amazement at the Left.
This is not terribly complicated. The insurance industry business model is predicated on risk-pooling. Your rate is determined by your risk of disease or injury. Insurance companies use actuarial tables (i.e., historical data from their past experience) and disclosed risk factors (as in, “do you smoke?”, or “do you work with dangerous chemicals?” and the like) to determine your rate.
People with pre-existing conditions are no longer at risk of their condition: they already have it. Insurance provides for financial protection against the possibility of misfortune, but it will not provide compensation for misfortune that has already befallen you, so you can’t, for example, insure yourself against a house fire after your house has burned down. In reality, the money for treatment must come from somewhere, and in the health insurance industry business model those funds come from long years of premiums from healthy people. The insured can get treatment in excess of their premiums if they have the misfortune of being stricken, but only because the rest of the healthy pool is paying for it. The risk the insurance companies take is that you’ll do exactly that, whereas the risk the insured take is that they’ll have paid premiums for years and ultimately realize no benefit.
What Liberals are demanding reflects their Marxist, or perhaps, child-like understanding of the insurance industry. Insurance companies are not like Santa Clause. They have balance sheets. The money that comes in must cover the money that goes out or the company ceases to exist. There are no elves working in a North Pole workshop to fashion drugs and crutches for the needy.
Insurance policies are business transactions based on the risks inherent in a mutually unknown future. To demand that the insurance companies pay for pre-existing conditions without reflecting those increased costs in premiums is to demand that they finance an entitlement program, and as such it is completely unreasonable, but makes perfect sense if the aim is to destroy the health insurance industry. To term their legislation as a means by which to “bar discrimination” is just an effort to piggyback on the popular and moral support of anti-discrimination laws against racism and discrimination based on religion or sexual preference.
In order for this phrasing to work we also saw the introduction of the concept that health care is a right. Somehow, and never mind how. Liberals declaring that health care is a right does not make it so, any more than the declaration of little girls that it’s their right to have a pony, no matter how much they really, really want one. Even if it were a right, it does not follow that it is the obligation of insurance companies to foot the bill for pre-existing conditions.
The Public Option
The Public Option has been presented as a means of introducing competition to the market. I’d like to pause here to say that hearing Liberals speak in praise of free market competition is simultaneously amusing and infuriating. When the Left adopts the language of capitalism their words often reflect their misunderstandings and ignorance – or, perhaps equally likely, an attempt to mislead. Although it’s true that states limit the competition between insurance companies and thus limit the choices of consumers, this is clearly an issue of the states’ choice that can be resolved on a state-level basis. Resolving it on a national level would be a simple and not altogether unpalatable fix, and it would have the benefit of being easy and simple. If what they really wanted was more competition then that would be the way to go, and that’s why they didn’t go that way.
The Public Option is neither simple nor easy but it does provide the means by which the private industry can be destroyed by tilting the playing field in favor of the Public Option. Private companies have balance sheets, but the Public Option would be effectively exempt from that necessity. It’s easy enough to illustrate: imagine the premiums charged by the Public Option are insufficient to cover the expense of the program: will Liberals demand that we cover the shortfall with tax dollars? Of course. They might also raise premiums, but it’s the tax subsidy that is a dagger in the gut of private enterprise. By freeing the Public Option from the balance sheets the playing field is tilted against the private sector and can be the means by which the government can and would kill off private enterprise in this sector. The Public Option can outspend private enterprise by virtue of the bottomless pockets of the government which supports it.
Would they do such a thing? Considering the naked hostility Liberals have shown towards the health insurance industry, I’m guessing the answer is: Yes.
Yes they would.
Single Payer
This is the Monopsony Option, which polls very well amongst Liberals. The folks who tout the benefits of “competition” in the insurance market also prefer the stranglehold of a single buyer in that market. This, from the folks who decry the buying power of Wal-Mart; they want that power for the government to wield against the healthcare industry.
With the power to dictate – yes, dictate – price, the government would, as they have promised, extract the lowest possible prices from industry that they can. With less revenue the healthcare industries would be unable to funnel funds into research and development or hire the best employees. The best-case scenario of Single Payer would have the effect of stifling innovation by nearly eliminating the resources necessary for R&D and staffing their positions with people who will work for peanuts.
The worst-case scenario is that it would go further than that and kill off private enterprise in this sector by paying unsustainably low prices for goods and services. Metaphorically, it would be as if the government pushed them right to the edge of a cliff, and with the slightest misfortune of a breeze in the wrong direction, over the cliff they’d go, leaving a statist Liberal government and their supporters tsk-tsk’ing and saying, “Well, that’s just too bad – I guess we’ll have to rely on the government to provide those goods or services, too.”
The rebuttal is that Single Payer would drive down costs by reducing overhead and eliminating profit. Reducing overhead is a something our government is not motivated to do, so they don’t. Inefficiency is almost the inevitable result of government spending. Remember, POTUS Obama has said that the government will reap efficiencies by going after “waste, fraud, and abuse” in existing programs. If the government were motivated to do that, it would have done so already. The fact that there is waste, fraud, and abuse on a massive scale in those programs should act as a valuable object lesson in why we shouldn’t have these kinds of programs in the first place. Leave it to Liberals to draw exactly the wrong conclusion.
As for eliminating profit, it is not surprising that, at the same time that Liberals and Democrats have touted their support of free enterprise and the private sector, they have made plain their abhorrence of profit. I have been struck by the indignation of Liberals, never so plain as in the last few years, that these – or any - corporations make profit. As an industry, and at this time, the insurance business is only modestly profitable, taking in an average of 3.3%, which makes it only the 86th most profitable industry in America. This puts the lie to the assertion from the Left that taking the profit out of the health insurance industry would bring down costs. As an investment, insurance companies have a return on investment worse than some Rewards checking accounts. To define this as excessive greed, as gouging, is to declare that profits are inherently bad on the whole, which is why I say that theirs is a Marxist argument. If the modest profits of the insurance industry are under attack for being excessive then no business is safe from these Marxists.
Taken altogether, it is for the above reasons that I have been opposed to the Democrat “reform” proposals – they were all aimed at one ultimate goal: government takeover of the healthcare industry. But don’t take it from me – take it from Democrats.
Take it from candidate Obama in this longer excerpt.
Knowing that this is their goal, there’s no reason for me to be in favor of whatever incremental gains they can make towards achieving it.
The “47 Million” Deception
Add to that the inflated numbers of how many people would be “helped.” Remember the “47 million” POTUS Obama said were uninsured? Let’s not dwell on the logical chasm that Liberal pundits leapt with a single bound to extend that assertion to mean that 47 million people were without health care. Do you remember when that number magically shrank down to 30 million? Liberals, weren’t you the least bit concerned that, without explanation, POTUS Obama lowered this figure, and that Democrats followed suit? What happened?
Lay it at the feet of Mark Levin, who single-handedly – look, no help from the dogged investigative reporters of the MSM! – broke down the numbers from the Census and revealed the truth: the Democrats were lying.
“About 9.5 million were not United States citizens. Another 17 million lived in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 a year and could, presumably, purchase their own health care coverage. Eighteen million of the 46.6 million uninsured were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four, most of whom were in good health and not necessarily in need of health-care coverage or chose not to purchase it. Moreover, only 30 percent of the nonelderly population who became uninsured in a given year remained uninsured for more than twelve months. Almost 50 percent regained their health coverage within four months.”The right accused the Democrats of planning to cover illegal aliens, and they were – of course – but they denied it at the same time they counted them in. One can only imagine that the lie became simply untenable as Obama mysteriously lowered the count to 30 million, a number that is still overinflated.
“Liberty and Tyranny”, by Mark Levin, p107.
Many of the people Democrats claim to be “helping” are healthy young adults who have good reason for not spending their money on health insurance. The individual mandate will require them to do just that, so let’s reframe this for what it is: a massive and involuntary transfer of wealth. As candidate Obama told Joe the Plumber, he was going to “spread the wealth around.”
This healthcare giveaway to the poor will have to be paid for by someone, and it’s looking like it’s going to come from taxpayers, cuts in care to seniors, and young people who neither need, nor want, nor can afford insurance, but will have to buy it anyway. Ironically, young people were overwhelmingly supportive of him when he was running for the presidency. So, how do you like your redistributionist Marxist president now, kids?
The Individual Mandate
Is it within the constitutional powers of our federal government to compel the citizenry to buy goods or services from a private enterprise? I honestly don’t know, although it’s true to say that it’s never been done before. The examples given by the Left don’t seem to apply: for example, auto insurance is state-mandated, and besides which it protects others from the damage and injury that might be caused by you, as opposed to the health insurance mandate which protects you from, well, your own financial circumstances. FICA is a compulsory insurance program but it’s not run by private enterprise.
The mandate is necessary to help finance the plan – all those too young or rich to want to buy insurance will be compelled to do so and thus subsidize via premiums the expense outlay of health care for the poor and middle class. Yet, amazingly, although there is a mandate, the IRS can’t do a damn thing if you don’t pay it:
“The penalty applies to any period the individual does not maintain minimum essential coverage and is determined monthly. The penalty is assessed through the Code and accounted for as an additional amount of Federal tax owed. However, it is not subject to the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code. The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner.”As is pointed out in the blog post to which I linked, the effect will be to encourage people to buy insurance only when they get sick or injured. This reinforces the argument that this legislation is specifically intended to put the insurance companies out of business. We’ll know if this was an oversight if that loophole gets patched up.
[Update 2010-03-31: OTOH the above might be a misinterpretation, as opinions differ. So it seems the IRS will be able to enforce the mandate. Less debt, more tax collection. Yay.]
Massive new spending and a massive expansion of government
It was bad enough that no sooner had the Congress passed Pay-Go – the requirement that new non-discretionary funding be offset by increased taxes or budget reallocation – than they immediately turned around and exempted an extension to unemployment benefits and COBRA benefits. Let’s grant the debatable merits of the proposal – we’ll let Krugman debate himself on that issue – and focus on the process at work. How can we not assume the worst; that, given the opportunity, power, and desire to simply exempt their handouts from the constraints of a limited budget, they won’t simply do the same, with any program, at any time? Think Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, etc. More specifically, and pressingly, will Obamacare be any different? Put another way, should their budget projections prove to be in error, will there be any going back? Can you imagine the Democrats saying, “We thought it would save us money, but it turns out it’s much more expensive than we thought and it’s going to put us even deeper into debt, so let’s go back to the system we had”?
Nonsense. Never. For Liberals, entitlements programs once enacted are forever. For Congress, trust funds are for raiding, spending limitations are for breaking, and hyperoptimistic budget projections are for suckers, i.e., you.
Let’s be clear: Our country is deeply in debt, and has been for quite some time. The Democrats, from top to bottom, are planning to double that debt over the next ten years. That’s not a prediction, that’s their plan. That’s the plan, based on a best-case scenario, based on their fantasy numbers of a vibrant, growing economy, predictions that have already fallen short of reality. That’s the plan, come hell or high water, and no budget shortfalls will prove sufficient impetus to curtail that plan.
The Democrats have given us a new ginormous monster of an entitlement program. Where will the money come from? Where could it possible come from? Current chair of the Federal Reserve, Bob Bernanke, says the Fed won’t print the dollars to cover the shortfall. I suspect that if he won’t, he’ll be replaced with someone who will. Aside from that they could try to borrow the money, but already the AAA rating of the United States is teetering as the cost of borrowing that money goes up. They can’t possibly cut the budget sufficiently to make up for the shortfall, even if they slashed the DOD down to puny helpless European levels (which is, of course, what the Europeans did to afford their own universal healthcare programs). They could raise taxes – and they will – but the Laffer Curve can only be pushed so far before increases in the tax rate will result in decreases in tax revenues.
Do they care? Does it matter, given that the most optimistic interpretation of their actions is that they’re trying their best to help the economy? That is to say, if their intentions really are good, and this is the best they can do, does it matter whether they really do care? And does anyone remember when the Democrats were outraged at the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush Administration, now dwarfed in comparison to our present Democrat-controlled government?
Or is it their intention to destroy the economy in order to remake it? They could do our economy more harm than they have, and my guess is that they will.
Our present disaster will apparently be eclipsed by a catastrophe. By design, however you look at it, even if you take them at their word that their intentions are as stated and benign. Liberal fantasies of “free” healthcare for everyone, unaffordable in the best of times, crammed down our throats at the worst possible time, in their willful fantasy-world disconnection from fiscal reality, have already sent us skidding into the depths of ruin.
What is to be done?
The Tea Party activists must make their influence felt, starting from the bottom up. The Republicans must stand together on principled financial conservativism and to hell with the social conservatives, and that is admittedly easier said than done. It’s a question, at this early stage, whether the Republicans will capitulate. It’s a real possibility that right-wing constituencies must make clear is unacceptable by any measure.
What I’d like to see happen is for a crushing defeat to the Democrats this November, and the November after that. What I’d like for them to do is to dismantle the socialist state that’s been built up over decades, to crush it. That’s not blustering hyperbole; I really mean it. One of the first acts of POTUS Obama on taking office was to cut off the funding for the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, giving them only enough money to wind it down. Note that he didn’t cut the program – he killed it. Let’s do the same to the cherished social welfare projects of the Left. Repeal Obamacare? Certainly, but we can’t stop there.
We can do the same to such fancies as the NEA. Wind them down and sell off the assets, from the buildings right down the stationary, and to their state employees we’ll give an apple and a roadmap as we send them on their way.
Let the Liberal-Left scream and shout, stamp their little feet, and hold their breath until they’re blue in the face. I don’t care. I want to leave them with nothing, so that if and when they regain power they’ll have to start all over again. From scratch.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Careless With The Health of the Republic
Well, they went and did it.
Last night the Democratic party, after demonstrating beyond the shadow of any lingering doubt which might have remained that no principle lacks a price tag, no constituency's wishes are too important to simply ignore, no Constitutionally-delineated procedure is too crucial to subvert, by hook and by crook (and even then, by the narrowest of margins)...they went and did it. And today, my Facebook is flooded with my Liberal friends' rhapsodies on the glory days to come, the alleviation of anxieties, the freedom to strike off in unconventional directions and create, etc. (not to mention one "middle finger" to Republicans. Gracious, that).
All I see is a Nation that just got force-fed the chance to become just a little bit more infantilized. Well, that, and a series of Power Point presentations by Beijing bankers to a conference room packed with representatives from Tehran, Caracas, Damascus, Moscow, et. al.
Today, I am simply too dejected and crestfallen (and not from a particularly high crest, either) to go on at length. Fortunately, there is Doctor Zero for just these moments.
Ordinarily, I am very much a divided government guy, and the very concept of all-but eradicating a political party makes me itchy. The need to hash out compromises with the other side keeps the radicals on both sides at bay (in theory), and keep our senators and congressfolk responsive to their constituents (when they are inclined to act rationally).
But the Democrats very simply have not acted in a way which merits our trust to continue working in the People's House. They have arrogated to themselves the role of societal architects, trampling on the manifest will of the people to seize what they have deemed the people to need. They need to be punished for this deplorable travesty. Then, perhaps, duly chastened and with a renewed respect for the wishes of the voters they swear to serve, they can restore balance to the Hill...but in rather the same way that Anakin Skywalker restored balance to the Force, but with ballots, not blasters.
It won't be pretty. It will temporarily leave the GOP with the kind of monobloc power which they so shamefully squandered between 1994 and the routs of '06 and '08. That must not be allowed to happen again, but this is where the Tea Partiers come in. The Republican Party already shows signs of the focusing of the mind which defeat and dissent can bring, when everything lines up just right. By branding themselves as the party of hope and liberty and opportunity, by bringing a clear and articulate message, by heeding the admonishments of the Tea Parties, the GOP can turn the victories -- whose margins I intend to work to widen in whatever meager ways I can bring to bear -- into a moment of clarity for a Nation grown sclerotic under the fanatical and unaccountable engineering of the Democrat party.
This beast can be slowed by amendments and court challenges (and plenty of them!). It can be illuminated for all to see, in all its monstrous perversity. Its final implementation can be delayed well into mid-term election season. But in order for it to be brought down for good and all, in order to pave the way toward common-sense, incremental, truly deficit-neutral (or deficit-negative), market-based approaches to the provision of health coverage, the work is going to be slow and messy...until the point that a real electoral mandate allows Obamacare to be put down with a swift, sure stroke.
Until then, it will be a work of excruciating inches. But the very definition of what it means to be an American is at stake: are we a mob of dependents and "consumers," or a vibrant society of creators and problem-solvers? Is the health of this Nation to be measured in boons bestowed or in prizes won? Will we be so conditioned to seek Centrally Planned solutions to life's vicissitudes that we we forget our National legacy in the echoes of a long frontier, its emphasis on ingenuity and industriousness reflected in entrepreneurship and industriousness and social mobility/meritocracy, yoked to what persists in being (rightly) called "The American Dream?" Not if I can do anything about it!
The health care delivery system in this country is indeed shot to hell. But one must be very careful when addressing those shortcomings in delivery to preserve the incentives built into capitalism which have made such an enviable edifice of that which is delivered. I believe that such deliberate measures can be achieved, and that it is well within the capabilities of the American people to achieve them. But, as Chris Muir depicts in today's "Day By Day," we need to forget whatever it is we feel we may deserve, and prepare for one hum-dinger of a fight.
Last night the Democratic party, after demonstrating beyond the shadow of any lingering doubt which might have remained that no principle lacks a price tag, no constituency's wishes are too important to simply ignore, no Constitutionally-delineated procedure is too crucial to subvert, by hook and by crook (and even then, by the narrowest of margins)...they went and did it. And today, my Facebook is flooded with my Liberal friends' rhapsodies on the glory days to come, the alleviation of anxieties, the freedom to strike off in unconventional directions and create, etc. (not to mention one "middle finger" to Republicans. Gracious, that).
All I see is a Nation that just got force-fed the chance to become just a little bit more infantilized. Well, that, and a series of Power Point presentations by Beijing bankers to a conference room packed with representatives from Tehran, Caracas, Damascus, Moscow, et. al.
Today, I am simply too dejected and crestfallen (and not from a particularly high crest, either) to go on at length. Fortunately, there is Doctor Zero for just these moments.
The call of freedom requires you to turn away easy solutions offered by corrupt politicians. It’s not a “solution” anyway – just the gateway to another, heavier imposition on your liberty down the line. If its authors believed otherwise, why would they use tricks and lies to chisel out a “deficit-neutral” ten-year forecast from the Congressional Budget Office? A free man dismisses such deception with contempt, and demands to know what happens in Year Eleven. A free woman looks at a “crisis” in a heavily regulated market and commands government to remove itself to undo the damage it has already caused. What is the final form of a State that is rewarded for its failures with more power? We already know that name, don’t we?
Tonight, the Democrat Party declares war on the American middle class. They are gambling on the forced creation of an entitlement we’ll be too exhausted and weary to reject – no matter how poor its quality, corrupt its inception, or unbearable its cost. We do have one last chance to strike this down. There is no reason any Democrat up for re-election in 2010 or 2012 needs to retain their seats. They don’t own those seats, any more than the Kennedys owned Massachussetts. There’s no reason the Democrats need to exist as a viable political party after 2012. Obama can be their last President.Once the fog lifts, I intend to start working as hard as I can to bring that about.
Ordinarily, I am very much a divided government guy, and the very concept of all-but eradicating a political party makes me itchy. The need to hash out compromises with the other side keeps the radicals on both sides at bay (in theory), and keep our senators and congressfolk responsive to their constituents (when they are inclined to act rationally).
But the Democrats very simply have not acted in a way which merits our trust to continue working in the People's House. They have arrogated to themselves the role of societal architects, trampling on the manifest will of the people to seize what they have deemed the people to need. They need to be punished for this deplorable travesty. Then, perhaps, duly chastened and with a renewed respect for the wishes of the voters they swear to serve, they can restore balance to the Hill...but in rather the same way that Anakin Skywalker restored balance to the Force, but with ballots, not blasters.
It won't be pretty. It will temporarily leave the GOP with the kind of monobloc power which they so shamefully squandered between 1994 and the routs of '06 and '08. That must not be allowed to happen again, but this is where the Tea Partiers come in. The Republican Party already shows signs of the focusing of the mind which defeat and dissent can bring, when everything lines up just right. By branding themselves as the party of hope and liberty and opportunity, by bringing a clear and articulate message, by heeding the admonishments of the Tea Parties, the GOP can turn the victories -- whose margins I intend to work to widen in whatever meager ways I can bring to bear -- into a moment of clarity for a Nation grown sclerotic under the fanatical and unaccountable engineering of the Democrat party.
This beast can be slowed by amendments and court challenges (and plenty of them!). It can be illuminated for all to see, in all its monstrous perversity. Its final implementation can be delayed well into mid-term election season. But in order for it to be brought down for good and all, in order to pave the way toward common-sense, incremental, truly deficit-neutral (or deficit-negative), market-based approaches to the provision of health coverage, the work is going to be slow and messy...until the point that a real electoral mandate allows Obamacare to be put down with a swift, sure stroke.
Until then, it will be a work of excruciating inches. But the very definition of what it means to be an American is at stake: are we a mob of dependents and "consumers," or a vibrant society of creators and problem-solvers? Is the health of this Nation to be measured in boons bestowed or in prizes won? Will we be so conditioned to seek Centrally Planned solutions to life's vicissitudes that we we forget our National legacy in the echoes of a long frontier, its emphasis on ingenuity and industriousness reflected in entrepreneurship and industriousness and social mobility/meritocracy, yoked to what persists in being (rightly) called "The American Dream?" Not if I can do anything about it!
The health care delivery system in this country is indeed shot to hell. But one must be very careful when addressing those shortcomings in delivery to preserve the incentives built into capitalism which have made such an enviable edifice of that which is delivered. I believe that such deliberate measures can be achieved, and that it is well within the capabilities of the American people to achieve them. But, as Chris Muir depicts in today's "Day By Day," we need to forget whatever it is we feel we may deserve, and prepare for one hum-dinger of a fight.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Icebergs Ahead? Increase Speed!
[by Mr.Hengist]
My two favorite columnist piñatas at the WaPo are Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne Jr.; despite their race-hustling and chronic mischaracterizations of the positions of their political opposition, the consistency of their political hackistry never fails to amuse me. I was almost surprised to see the lede of Dionne's latest rub-a-dub rubbish, "What's holding the Democratic Party down":
Honesty would be refreshing from E.J., but could it be that this won’t end up as another pandering paen to progressivism? Will E.J. be conceding some deficiency in the Democrat Party? Might there be something they're doing wrong, or, more plausibly from this reliable Liberal cheerleader, might there be some reason to change course - even a little? Perchance, might it be in the best interests of the Democrats to steer around the iceberg?
He continues:
Let me just interject here that, although it may appear that Dionne is logically separating these four groups, he considers them all - Republicans, conservatives, and the Tea Party protesters - to be practitioners of obstruction. Just so we're clear.
Ah, there we go. Darn that Scott Brown: he ruined everything. Never mind that the Democrat supermajority in the House, the Democrat majority in the Senate, and the Democrat Executive Branch combined could not manage to get this passed over the course of the summer. It is apparently unconnected that Tea Party candidate Brown won the seat uber-Liberal Edward Kennedy held for thirty years, a seat held by his father for twenty years previous to his terms. Take it from E.J. Dionne: Brown’s election was a cause, not a result.
There's the E.J.Dionne I know! The failure to pass a health-care bill is the result of weakness in the Administration - they're just not enthusiastic enough, asleep at the switch, lacking only in sufficient quantities of determination. The Tea Party protests are like the barking of dogs: as meaningless as the sound of breaking glass, and the caravan moves on.
Icebergs sighted? Cruise Director E.J. of the DNC Titanic urges the bridge: Full Steam Ahead! If we go faster we can just plow right through!
Not for lack of trying on your side, Dionne. POTUS Obama has used his bully pulpit, the Dem Congresspeople have been making their case, the Liberal MSM has given them coverage ranging, by and large, from sympathetic to adoring in copious quantities, but, somehow, they can't close the deal with the American people.
The evolution of their health-care bill arguments is instructive: Doncha want free health care? OK, you’re right, that’s silly, it’s not free, but it’ll be cheap, and alls you want! Like Europe and Canada! OK, like them but without the rationing, the months-long waiting lists, and the high taxes! We'll cut out the fat cat insurance companies and have single payer! OK, if you don’t want a government monopsony, hows about a public option? No? Well, how about we just stick it to the insurance companies?
I mean, when you think about it, Dionne is arguing that Democrats should be winning people over to a health-care bill that's been shape-shifting like a T-1000 Terminator for the last year, and we still don't know what it will look like when they're ready to move it out of the shadows and vote on it. Somehow the Democrats aren't winning people over on a massive overhaul of one-sixth of the economy, the outline of which is still being secretly negotiated. Go figure.
Well, that's the outlook of many a hard-core Liberal who sees themselves as being close to moderate. Why, of course the 800 bazillion dollar "stimulus" bill was moderate - it didn't go nearly far enough for the likes of Dionne. For Liberals, the failure to achieve stated goals never means that they did the wrong thing, but that they should try harder and be more ambitious next time – and maybe change the rules in their favor, like getting rid of the Filibuster (see below).
Slightly to the right of hard-core Liberal does not land you at moderate, E.J.
I won't dwell on this except to say that Liberal and Conservative economists disagree sharply on the effectiveness of the "stimulus", and the standard set by the POTUS was "saved or created", thus making measurement of results effectively impossible. By design. At any rate, the Obama Administration sold us on the “stimulus” with the promise that, if passed, it would limit unemployment to 8.2%, and would go above 10% if it wasn’t passed. The bill passed and unemployment numbers blew past 8.2% as if nothing happened.
It should also be noted that a recent study by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia showed that Democrat districts received nearly twice as much of the “stimulus” as did Republican districts, and that there was “no correlation between economic indicators and stimulus funding. Preliminary results find no statistically significant effect of unemployment, median income or mean income on stimulus funds allocation.” Democrats rewarded their voters and shortchanged the rest of us, and now they want to do it again with a second “stimulus”, and oh, also, they want to control our health care.
Liberal pundits are now on-message that the Filibuster should be dispensed with as soon as possible. The possibility that they might need it again one day is irrelevant; if and when that day comes, they'll switch from this pretext and adopt their previously-held principle: that the filibuster is a pure form of free expression and debate in a thriving democracy. They'll expect you to forget their previously-held opposition to the filibuster when the time comes, just as they expect you've already forgotten their previously-held support for it. We have always been at war with Eurasia.
This kind of rewriting of history is entirely plausible to blinkered Liberals like Dionne, but an affront to their political opposition. Democrats "bipartisanship" consists of denying Republican input in crafting the bills, denying Republican amendments to those bills, and then inviting them to vote "yes". With majority control it's as obvious as can be that the problems the Democrats had were entirely within the Democrat Party, except that this would conflict with the Liberal maxim that all problems are ultimately the result of their political opposition.
The shamelessness of Dionne is hard not to admire, in its own crass sort of way. Remember that $100 Million payoff? From the Treasury, of money we don’t have, which we’ll either have to borrow or print or tax. That legal bribe, out of your wallet one way or another, was a side issue. It was those crafty Republicans who got the hoi polloi upset over little stuff like that.
Follow what Dionne is saying here: all the above proposals were denied by the moderates. A majority of Democrats supported those proposals. OK, so if the moderates put the brakes on all these proposals, how shall we characterize the proponents of those ideas? Hard-core Extremists? No, they call themselves Progressives.
"Progressive" - the happy-fun Liberal substitute word for Socialist.
"Do you like my strawman? Here, watch me swat it aside!" Simplistic and misleading? Absolutely.
... and, by "change the terms of the debate", he means they should change the Congressional procedural rules to eliminate the filibuster, and/or craft the bill in secret and then vote it's passage before anyone's had a chance to read it.
Yes, that's right, E.J.: a tidal wave of angry voters who are in no mood for the wishy-washy Democrat moderates; an electorate that will retaliate by, um, voting for right-wingers like Tea Party candidates like Scott Brown, or something. I'd buy a ticket for E.J. to board the clue train but wild horses couldn't drag him to the station.
My two favorite columnist piñatas at the WaPo are Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne Jr.; despite their race-hustling and chronic mischaracterizations of the positions of their political opposition, the consistency of their political hackistry never fails to amuse me. I was almost surprised to see the lede of Dionne's latest rub-a-dub rubbish, "What's holding the Democratic Party down":
If you want to be honest, face these facts: At this moment, President Obama is losing, Democrats are losing and liberals are losing.
Honesty would be refreshing from E.J., but could it be that this won’t end up as another pandering paen to progressivism? Will E.J. be conceding some deficiency in the Democrat Party? Might there be something they're doing wrong, or, more plausibly from this reliable Liberal cheerleader, might there be some reason to change course - even a little? Perchance, might it be in the best interests of the Democrats to steer around the iceberg?
He continues:
Who's winning? Republicans, conservatives, the practitioners of obstruction and the Tea Party.
Let me just interject here that, although it may appear that Dionne is logically separating these four groups, he considers them all - Republicans, conservatives, and the Tea Party protesters - to be practitioners of obstruction. Just so we're clear.
The two immediate causes for this state of affairs are a single election result in Massachusetts and the way the United States Senate operates. What's not responsible is the supposed failure of Obama and the Democrats to govern as "moderates." Pause to consider where we would be if a Democrat had won the Massachusetts Senate race last month. In all likelihood, health reform would be law, Democrats could have moved on to economic matters, and Obama would be seen as shrewd and successful.
Ah, there we go. Darn that Scott Brown: he ruined everything. Never mind that the Democrat supermajority in the House, the Democrat majority in the Senate, and the Democrat Executive Branch combined could not manage to get this passed over the course of the summer. It is apparently unconnected that Tea Party candidate Brown won the seat uber-Liberal Edward Kennedy held for thirty years, a seat held by his father for twenty years previous to his terms. Take it from E.J. Dionne: Brown’s election was a cause, not a result.
But that's not what happened, and Republican Scott Brown's victory revealed real weaknesses on the progressive side: an Obama political apparatus asleep at the switch, huge Republican enthusiasm unmatched by Democratic determination, and a focused conservative campaign to discredit Obama's ideas, notably his economic stimulus plan and the health-care bill.
There's the E.J.Dionne I know! The failure to pass a health-care bill is the result of weakness in the Administration - they're just not enthusiastic enough, asleep at the switch, lacking only in sufficient quantities of determination. The Tea Party protests are like the barking of dogs: as meaningless as the sound of breaking glass, and the caravan moves on.
Icebergs sighted? Cruise Director E.J. of the DNC Titanic urges the bridge: Full Steam Ahead! If we go faster we can just plow right through!
The Obama administration argues that both the stimulus and the health bill are better than people think. That's entirely true, and this is actually an indictment -- it means that on the two big issues of the moment, Republicans and conservatives are winning an argument they should be losing.
Not for lack of trying on your side, Dionne. POTUS Obama has used his bully pulpit, the Dem Congresspeople have been making their case, the Liberal MSM has given them coverage ranging, by and large, from sympathetic to adoring in copious quantities, but, somehow, they can't close the deal with the American people.
The evolution of their health-care bill arguments is instructive: Doncha want free health care? OK, you’re right, that’s silly, it’s not free, but it’ll be cheap, and alls you want! Like Europe and Canada! OK, like them but without the rationing, the months-long waiting lists, and the high taxes! We'll cut out the fat cat insurance companies and have single payer! OK, if you don’t want a government monopsony, hows about a public option? No? Well, how about we just stick it to the insurance companies?
I mean, when you think about it, Dionne is arguing that Democrats should be winning people over to a health-care bill that's been shape-shifting like a T-1000 Terminator for the last year, and we still don't know what it will look like when they're ready to move it out of the shadows and vote on it. Somehow the Democrats aren't winning people over on a massive overhaul of one-sixth of the economy, the outline of which is still being secretly negotiated. Go figure.
The dreadful Senate is a major culprit here, and that's why Sen. Evan Bayh's complaints in explaining his retirement rang partly true, but also partly false. What's true is that the Senate isn't working. What's false is that there is no room for moderation. The fact is that the legislative outcomes on both the stimulus and health care were driven by moderates.
Well, that's the outlook of many a hard-core Liberal who sees themselves as being close to moderate. Why, of course the 800 bazillion dollar "stimulus" bill was moderate - it didn't go nearly far enough for the likes of Dionne. For Liberals, the failure to achieve stated goals never means that they did the wrong thing, but that they should try harder and be more ambitious next time – and maybe change the rules in their favor, like getting rid of the Filibuster (see below).
Slightly to the right of hard-core Liberal does not land you at moderate, E.J.
Economists agree that the stimulus worked to create jobs, but Senate moderates made it less effective by shrinking its size and including irrelevancies -- notably $70 billion to fix the alternative minimum tax -- that did little to create jobs.
I won't dwell on this except to say that Liberal and Conservative economists disagree sharply on the effectiveness of the "stimulus", and the standard set by the POTUS was "saved or created", thus making measurement of results effectively impossible. By design. At any rate, the Obama Administration sold us on the “stimulus” with the promise that, if passed, it would limit unemployment to 8.2%, and would go above 10% if it wasn’t passed. The bill passed and unemployment numbers blew past 8.2% as if nothing happened.
It should also be noted that a recent study by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia showed that Democrat districts received nearly twice as much of the “stimulus” as did Republican districts, and that there was “no correlation between economic indicators and stimulus funding. Preliminary results find no statistically significant effect of unemployment, median income or mean income on stimulus funds allocation.” Democrats rewarded their voters and shortchanged the rest of us, and now they want to do it again with a second “stimulus”, and oh, also, they want to control our health care.
The moderates got their way because the stimulus needed 60 votes, an absurd standard now that we have an ideologically polarized, parliamentary-style party system. We can waste time mourning that development or we can recognize it and act accordingly.
Liberal pundits are now on-message that the Filibuster should be dispensed with as soon as possible. The possibility that they might need it again one day is irrelevant; if and when that day comes, they'll switch from this pretext and adopt their previously-held principle: that the filibuster is a pure form of free expression and debate in a thriving democracy. They'll expect you to forget their previously-held opposition to the filibuster when the time comes, just as they expect you've already forgotten their previously-held support for it. We have always been at war with Eurasia.
On health care, months of delay in a futile quest for Republican support got the Democrats the worst of all worlds. The media gave them no credit for reaching out to the other side but did blame them for an ugly, gridlocked process.
This kind of rewriting of history is entirely plausible to blinkered Liberals like Dionne, but an affront to their political opposition. Democrats "bipartisanship" consists of denying Republican input in crafting the bills, denying Republican amendments to those bills, and then inviting them to vote "yes". With majority control it's as obvious as can be that the problems the Democrats had were entirely within the Democrat Party, except that this would conflict with the Liberal maxim that all problems are ultimately the result of their political opposition.
The demands of moderate Democrats for concessions -- remember the politically lethal Nebraska payoff for Sen. Ben Nelson? -- made the process look even seamier. The bill's conservative opponents shrewdly focused on such side issues and on made-up issues such as the "death panels."
The shamelessness of Dionne is hard not to admire, in its own crass sort of way. Remember that $100 Million payoff? From the Treasury, of money we don’t have, which we’ll either have to borrow or print or tax. That legal bribe, out of your wallet one way or another, was a side issue. It was those crafty Republicans who got the hoi polloi upset over little stuff like that.
Nobody wants to admit that on health care the moderates won all the big fights. Single-payer was out at the start. The public option died. A Medicare buy-in died. The number of Americans who would be covered shrank. The insurance companies kept their antitrust exemption. If a bill eventually becomes law -- as it must if the Democrats are not to look like a feckless, useless lot -- the final proposal will be much closer to the moderate Senate version than to the more progressive bill passed by the House.
Follow what Dionne is saying here: all the above proposals were denied by the moderates. A majority of Democrats supported those proposals. OK, so if the moderates put the brakes on all these proposals, how shall we characterize the proponents of those ideas? Hard-core Extremists? No, they call themselves Progressives.
"Progressive" - the happy-fun Liberal substitute word for Socialist.
While liberals were arguing about public plans and this or that, and while Obama was deep into inside dealmaking, the conservatives relentlessly made a straightforward public case based on a syllogism: The economy is a mess. Obama and the Democrats are for big government. Big government is responsible for the mess. Therefore the mess is the fault of Obama and the Big Government Democrats.
Simplistic and misleading? Absolutely.
"Do you like my strawman? Here, watch me swat it aside!" Simplistic and misleading? Absolutely.
Moderate and progressive Democrats alike have eight months before this fall's elections to change the terms of the debate and prove they can govern.
... and, by "change the terms of the debate", he means they should change the Congressional procedural rules to eliminate the filibuster, and/or craft the bill in secret and then vote it's passage before anyone's had a chance to read it.
Otherwise, they'll be washed out by a tidal wave.
Yes, that's right, E.J.: a tidal wave of angry voters who are in no mood for the wishy-washy Democrat moderates; an electorate that will retaliate by, um, voting for right-wingers like Tea Party candidates like Scott Brown, or something. I'd buy a ticket for E.J. to board the clue train but wild horses couldn't drag him to the station.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Obama Plays Hardball...
Most unfortunate headline evah! (maybe there'll be some help for this from ACORN...)
Dang. I'm a moderate immigration/rule-of-law hawk, but this is a little cold. Since it would only be a matter of time before any hardy private insurance companies operating outside of the "Exchange" were driven out of business, that would leave any undocumented aliens SOL with regard to health coverage...even if they had the means and the initiative to purchase it for themselves. So, back to the ER with them, and there go the savings!
UPDATE (12/8/2009) : Fixed expired link
WASHINGTON — The White House strengthened its stand against health care coverage for illegal immigrants Friday, and a pivotal Senate committee looked ready to follow its lead.
The developments reflected a renewed focus on the issue in the days since a Republican congressman's outburst during President Barack Obama's health care speech to Congress on Wednesday night. Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouted "You lie!" as Obama said illegal immigrants wouldn't be covered under his health plan.
Democrats had pointed to provisions in House and Senate legislation that prohibited illegal immigrants from getting federal subsidies that would be offered to lower-income Americans to help them buy insurance.
That didn't go far enough for Wilson or many other Republicans, who noted the absence of any enforcement mechanism or requirement for verification of legal status. There are some 7 million illegal immigrants in this country who lack health insurance, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.
The issue has caused heat on talk radio and at congressional town halls, too. So on Friday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs sketched a new position that goes even further than some conservative critics had demanded: Obama will oppose letting illegal immigrants buy insurance through new purchasing exchanges the government will set up — even from private companies operating within the exchanges.
Dang. I'm a moderate immigration/rule-of-law hawk, but this is a little cold. Since it would only be a matter of time before any hardy private insurance companies operating outside of the "Exchange" were driven out of business, that would leave any undocumented aliens SOL with regard to health coverage...even if they had the means and the initiative to purchase it for themselves. So, back to the ER with them, and there go the savings!
UPDATE (12/8/2009) : Fixed expired link
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
An Unhealthy Dynamic
You may be getting the impression that I've seized on the issue of so-called healthcare "reform" with an intensity previously reserved for counterinsurgency and the Presidential election of 2008. That impression would be correct. Quite apart from the utter catastrophe which the slide toward a single payer system would represent for our already-precarious economy, this debate has highlighted in unusually high relief the tension between the centralizing tendencies of the Democrats, and the Conservative and Republican (at least theoretical) predilection toward individualism and free-market principles. Further, the tone and mode of the debate has simultaneously revealed the rank hypocrisy of the Left (for which vigorous dissent is only acceptable/legitimate if it originates from their camp), and the long-overdue awakening of the sleeping giant which is the Center-Right voice of most of America. Interesting times.
"Doctor Zero," one of the rising stars over at Hot Air posted a splendid editorial which discusses the full meaning and extent of the well-deserved damage which the Democratic party is doing to itself in this imbroglio. Here's a sample:
But, as Mr Hengist rightly pointed out, this explanation only takes one so far. If the Democrats' unwavering faith in centralizing organization (and lack of faith in the collective effects of free, individual thinking) were the only factors in play, then the so-called "astroturfing" of GOP and Industry lobbies would be seen as no less legitimate than the "community organizing" of their own crowd. They would approach this matter as a robust contest of competing influence groups for the hearts and minds of the people, and the rhetoric would sound very different. Instead, we get the "Mob for thee, Energized Community for me" approach which is so definitively allowing the mask to slip from over the disdainful elitism and cynical opportunism which permeates the highest echelons of the Democratic party.
Further, the chilling irony of the Left decrying so-called "thuggish tactics" from those on the Right (and the Center, and anywhere else) is there for all to see (not a big fan of Michelle Malkin, but she does bring it together nicely here). Doctor Zero's post rightly points out that the current and evolving shape of the information landscape is already making it more difficult for the Democrats to shape the narrative as comprehensively as they once did. Even an indecently compliant media is finding itself forced to compete on a much wider playing field for control of the story.
And we all know how the Liberal elites feel about competition.
UPDATE (8/13/2009): I've been noticing in recent days that the term "teabaggers" has slid insidiously into the mainstream of how those who speak up in town halls, and demonstrate against oppressive government overreach are referred to. I'm finding it in the "official" mailings I get from MoveOn, etc. The epithet has been around for a while, but it appears to be spreading and becoming more entrenched. Way to stay classy, "Reality-Based Community." After all, nothing says 'moral high ground' like name-calling and crass sexual innuendo.
"Doctor Zero," one of the rising stars over at Hot Air posted a splendid editorial which discusses the full meaning and extent of the well-deserved damage which the Democratic party is doing to itself in this imbroglio. Here's a sample:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, along with Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, wrote an interesting op-ed column in USA Today, calling the increasing numbers of Americans who are asking tough questions about the Democrats’ health-care scheme “un-American.” I know “interesting” probably isn’t the first adjective most people reading this would choose to describe it. It is interesting, though. It’s a desperate play by nervous politicians to extinguish resistance to a massive takeover they’re drooling with eagerness to complete. It’s the arrogant response of a political elite that sees itself as royalty, clad in the unimpeachable moral authority of democracy - a ruling class of philosopher-kings that only expects to be challenged once every couple of years, in carefully controlled local races they have a 90% chance of winning. Pelosi was elected from San Francisco in 1987, while Hoyer has been perched atop the 5th Congressional District of Maryland since 1981. To say that neither of them is used to sustained, energetic, effective resistance to their agendas would be an understatement.I tend to share the optimism here, if only due to the trends in the polls on Obamacare. It sure does look like people are responding to the voices of opposition, and that does not bode well for the the oligarchical thinking which seems to permeate the Democratic party. It really is stunning to see the looks of outraged incredulity on the faces of congresscritters who are challenged by voters who dare to question them passionately. It is telling that the only explanation they can provide is that these people are being steered by sinister forces. The problem with statists is that they are all-but congenitally unable to grasp that people can self-organize in ways which are rational, since their world-view holds that --populist polemics aside-- such organization can only descend from Central Planning Committees and the like.The most interesting thing about Pelosi and Hoyer’s brand of McCarthyism is how pathetically ineffective it is. To their great surprise, calling the protesters “un-American” isn’t shutting them up. Today’s USA Today op-ed is the latest variation on one of the oldest plays in the Left’s playbook: painting their opposition as fundamentally illegitimate. It’s time for them to replace that page in their playbook, because it will never work again.
But, as Mr Hengist rightly pointed out, this explanation only takes one so far. If the Democrats' unwavering faith in centralizing organization (and lack of faith in the collective effects of free, individual thinking) were the only factors in play, then the so-called "astroturfing" of GOP and Industry lobbies would be seen as no less legitimate than the "community organizing" of their own crowd. They would approach this matter as a robust contest of competing influence groups for the hearts and minds of the people, and the rhetoric would sound very different. Instead, we get the "Mob for thee, Energized Community for me" approach which is so definitively allowing the mask to slip from over the disdainful elitism and cynical opportunism which permeates the highest echelons of the Democratic party.
Further, the chilling irony of the Left decrying so-called "thuggish tactics" from those on the Right (and the Center, and anywhere else) is there for all to see (not a big fan of Michelle Malkin, but she does bring it together nicely here). Doctor Zero's post rightly points out that the current and evolving shape of the information landscape is already making it more difficult for the Democrats to shape the narrative as comprehensively as they once did. Even an indecently compliant media is finding itself forced to compete on a much wider playing field for control of the story.
And we all know how the Liberal elites feel about competition.
UPDATE (8/13/2009): I've been noticing in recent days that the term "teabaggers" has slid insidiously into the mainstream of how those who speak up in town halls, and demonstrate against oppressive government overreach are referred to. I'm finding it in the "official" mailings I get from MoveOn, etc. The epithet has been around for a while, but it appears to be spreading and becoming more entrenched. Way to stay classy, "Reality-Based Community." After all, nothing says 'moral high ground' like name-calling and crass sexual innuendo.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Krugman Unhinged
Via the ever-reliable New York Times, comes this screed by Paul Krugman. I've passed on many an opportunity to vent on the egregious spleen vomited forth by those who would silence the legitimate concerns of dissenting citizens on the question of healthcare "reform." I simply have not been able to rely on myself to remain even remotely civil in commenting on the sneering hypocrisy of the very voices who declared dissent to be the highest form of patriotism...so long as that dissent took the form of exercising their freedom of speech to declare (largely unchallenged) that George W Bush was squashing dissent.
I am no longer all that concerned about remaining civil.
Krugman is so far off the deep end with his assault on the legitimacy of his (cough) fellow citizens' expressions of discontent, that he couldn't touch bottom from a diving board which required oxygen supplies:
Really? The "Birthers" (those who question Obama's citizenship and thus his qualification to hold the office of POTUS) are a fraction of a fraction of the farthest fringe of the conservative movement, scorned by all mainstream conservative spokespeople. Krugman's and his Democratic fellow-travelers' disingenuous attempt to conflate this gang with the broad spectrum of Americans who object to the Democrats' attempted phagocytosis of the world's premier healthcare system by yet another bloated, deficit-funded bureaucracy is the very depth of demagoguery.
This is not about race. It is not about "astroturfing." It is about political (and literal!) thuggery of the most base sort, with a liberal dose (pun intentional) of snide elitism (right down to the ever-so-cleverly embedded Yeats reference in Krugman's penultimate paragraph).
The people who are organizing (as a community...) to protest this Rube-Goldberg of a healthcare takeover are not "brownshirts." They are not funded by nefarious corporate cabals. They are not motivated by racism, nor are they ignorant of the issues. They are our neighbors, our relatives, our friends. They are Americans. These attempts to vilify and silence them are a nauseating disgrace, a perversion of the very essence of political discourse in this Republic.
And, as is becoming increasingly clear, there will be a price.
I am no longer all that concerned about remaining civil.
Krugman is so far off the deep end with his assault on the legitimacy of his (cough) fellow citizens' expressions of discontent, that he couldn't touch bottom from a diving board which required oxygen supplies:
That is, the driving force behind the town hall mobs is probably the same cultural and racial anxiety that’s behind the “birther” movement, which denies Mr. Obama’s citizenship. Senator Dick Durbin has suggested that the birthers and the health care protesters are one and the same; we don’t know how many of the protesters are birthers, but it wouldn’t be surprising if it’s a substantial fraction.
Really? The "Birthers" (those who question Obama's citizenship and thus his qualification to hold the office of POTUS) are a fraction of a fraction of the farthest fringe of the conservative movement, scorned by all mainstream conservative spokespeople. Krugman's and his Democratic fellow-travelers' disingenuous attempt to conflate this gang with the broad spectrum of Americans who object to the Democrats' attempted phagocytosis of the world's premier healthcare system by yet another bloated, deficit-funded bureaucracy is the very depth of demagoguery.
This is not about race. It is not about "astroturfing." It is about political (and literal!) thuggery of the most base sort, with a liberal dose (pun intentional) of snide elitism (right down to the ever-so-cleverly embedded Yeats reference in Krugman's penultimate paragraph).
The people who are organizing (as a community...) to protest this Rube-Goldberg of a healthcare takeover are not "brownshirts." They are not funded by nefarious corporate cabals. They are not motivated by racism, nor are they ignorant of the issues. They are our neighbors, our relatives, our friends. They are Americans. These attempts to vilify and silence them are a nauseating disgrace, a perversion of the very essence of political discourse in this Republic.
And, as is becoming increasingly clear, there will be a price.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Thoughtful Post on Healthcare
I've been sitting on this link for about a week, waiting till I felt I could do it justice with a more long and thinky post. Belatedly, I've just come to the conclusion that there's really nothing I have to add to the basic "Read The Whole Thing" message.
So, go forth and savor the wisdom.
So, go forth and savor the wisdom.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Trojan Man
A little prophylactic medicine can go a long way, when the illness it heads off would penetrate so many sectors of one's life.
In this case, here's a very instructive vid (via HotAir) about the doubleplus-ungood doublespeak making the rounds on this matter of whether the fortunately-imperiled "public option" is intended (as it's being sold) to provide healthy market-like competition for the private health insurance sector...or whether it was always intended as the skinny edge of the wedge for a single-payer system down the road. It's no mystery where I stand on the matter.
One may believe that single-payer is the fairest and best way for this country to go, healthcare-wise, or one may think that it will be a ruinous wet blanket on a flawed but enviably vibrant and innovative system. Where I hope we will all agree is that these issues should be debated soberly, transparently, and comprehensively, and that this kind of kabuki maneuvering is insultingly out of place.
And for those who would argue that the GOP is engaging in similar gamesmanship by endeavoring to delay this issue till after the August recess (mission accomplished!), it is worth reflecting on what possible gain Republicans could have hoped to achieve unless they believed that further scrutiny and discussion would ultimately erode popular support for the public option. Seems it'd be kind of foolish to be seen as obstructing something they truly felt the people would support even after getting a good long look.
Again, no matter where you stand on Universal Healthcare, this kind of pillow talk doesn't seem especially democratic. Unfortunately, it does appear to be all-too Democratic.
In this case, here's a very instructive vid (via HotAir) about the doubleplus-ungood doublespeak making the rounds on this matter of whether the fortunately-imperiled "public option" is intended (as it's being sold) to provide healthy market-like competition for the private health insurance sector...or whether it was always intended as the skinny edge of the wedge for a single-payer system down the road. It's no mystery where I stand on the matter.
One may believe that single-payer is the fairest and best way for this country to go, healthcare-wise, or one may think that it will be a ruinous wet blanket on a flawed but enviably vibrant and innovative system. Where I hope we will all agree is that these issues should be debated soberly, transparently, and comprehensively, and that this kind of kabuki maneuvering is insultingly out of place.
And for those who would argue that the GOP is engaging in similar gamesmanship by endeavoring to delay this issue till after the August recess (mission accomplished!), it is worth reflecting on what possible gain Republicans could have hoped to achieve unless they believed that further scrutiny and discussion would ultimately erode popular support for the public option. Seems it'd be kind of foolish to be seen as obstructing something they truly felt the people would support even after getting a good long look.
Again, no matter where you stand on Universal Healthcare, this kind of pillow talk doesn't seem especially democratic. Unfortunately, it does appear to be all-too Democratic.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Obama Crossing Lines on Health Care Takeover? (UPDATED)
Yesterday, Ed Morrisey at Hot Air broke the story (which was picked up by Fox News...and apparently no one else) about a highly irregular meeting ordered by President Obama with Doug Elmendorf, the head of the Congressional Budget Office. You may or may not recall that last month Mr. Elmendorf poked a pin in the inflated expectations of the Obama Administration's estimates of the cost savings and increased availability of benefits which its healthcare "reform" legislation would bring about (again, h/t to Ed at HotAir). Apparently, the POTUS did not appreciate being so pricked.
The thing about this meeting is that it crosses separation-of-powers boundaries to a truly unsettling degree. The whole point of the CBO is that it is a Congressional body, whose purpose is to assess proposed legislation in terms of its likely cost to taxpayers, free from political pressure from the White House. The Executive Branch has the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to do its own analyses (and the current OMB director, Peter Orszag, happens to be the former director of the CBO, so it's not like there was any significant fact-finding value to be gained from calling in the current director). There was no good reason to go off the reservation and call this meeting, except to try and finesse (or intimidate?) Elmendorf to soften his assessment of the White House's proposals for the overhaul of how health care coverage is provided in this country. I find it difficult to swallow any more charitable interpretation of this inappropriate sit-down.
For a President who has spent so much bandwidth and oxygen criticizing his predecessor for unduly expanding the power of the Executive Branch, this crafty confab looks like a real hippo of a hypocrisy.
It will be very interesting to see what kind of coverage it gets, outside of Fox Land.
UPDATE: Ed Morrissey is staying on top of this story, which is shaping up to be a really unprecedented and, as Ed quite correctly deems it, unseemly clash between branches of our government. As it is, there is little evidence that this Administration is especially clueful about the rudiments of free-market principles. Throw in a conspicuous lack of knowledge (or at least willingness to apply any knowledge which it does possess) on basic civics, and all those barbs about Sarah Palin's intelligence and competence are starting to ring hollower than the haughty heads of Hollywood.
The thing about this meeting is that it crosses separation-of-powers boundaries to a truly unsettling degree. The whole point of the CBO is that it is a Congressional body, whose purpose is to assess proposed legislation in terms of its likely cost to taxpayers, free from political pressure from the White House. The Executive Branch has the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to do its own analyses (and the current OMB director, Peter Orszag, happens to be the former director of the CBO, so it's not like there was any significant fact-finding value to be gained from calling in the current director). There was no good reason to go off the reservation and call this meeting, except to try and finesse (or intimidate?) Elmendorf to soften his assessment of the White House's proposals for the overhaul of how health care coverage is provided in this country. I find it difficult to swallow any more charitable interpretation of this inappropriate sit-down.
For a President who has spent so much bandwidth and oxygen criticizing his predecessor for unduly expanding the power of the Executive Branch, this crafty confab looks like a real hippo of a hypocrisy.
It will be very interesting to see what kind of coverage it gets, outside of Fox Land.
UPDATE: Ed Morrissey is staying on top of this story, which is shaping up to be a really unprecedented and, as Ed quite correctly deems it, unseemly clash between branches of our government. As it is, there is little evidence that this Administration is especially clueful about the rudiments of free-market principles. Throw in a conspicuous lack of knowledge (or at least willingness to apply any knowledge which it does possess) on basic civics, and all those barbs about Sarah Palin's intelligence and competence are starting to ring hollower than the haughty heads of Hollywood.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
People of Ilium, Have A Care
Via Real Clear Politics, Monday's Investor's Business Daily carried an editorial which was among the better debunkings of the notion that the "Public Option" of the proposed Obamacare plan is anything but a Trojan Horse for a single-payer system. Light on slogans and rich with examples, this well-written editorial reveals the history of government-backed entities squashing the very competition which the Democratic spinners are portraying as the point of introducing a massive, Fannie-esque insurance provider:
Fannie, Freddie and Citizens Insurance have taught us a resounding lesson: Government-backed competition in a private market undoubtedly distorts markets, drives out competition and often leads to taxpayer assistance down the road.Should a "public option" be inserted into the health care market and perform like other government programs, 120 million Americans would lose their current coverage, according to actuaries at the nonpartisan Lewin Group. It's not hard to foresee employers dumping their private provider in search of less expensive, government-subsidized coverage.
Make no mistake: this "Public Option" is nothing more than a thinly-veiled dagger, aimed at the heart of the private system which, for all of its undeniable flaws, has spurred the creation of the most vibrant and innovative health-care system in the world. After all, if the health care market becomes as distorted as would certainly be the case if private insurers are forced to try and compete with a taxpayer-backed entity, the result will be a savage curtailment of the prospects for incentivizing profits. As sure as the sun rises, one of the first casualties of such an environment will be the budgets for research and development. When collective cost containment becomes the dominant value, then the value of developing cutting-edge treatments and drugs (which are more likely than not to be denied coverage) will drop precipitously. Drug and medical research companies will cut to the bone (alas, all-too literally!) to preserve what is left of their profit margins. The ensuing contraction in innovation, along with the rationing which is the inevitable result of the sort of socialized system which will emerge from the growing pile of strangled private payers, will signal the enduring mediocritization of American health care.
It is a thing most fervently to be hoped that the American public looks very closely at that horse at the gates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)