Health care: Which is the real party of no?
The biggest lie, falsehood, misinformation — whatever you want to call it — in our health-care debate has been that the Democrats are the only side that’s contributing ideas. Yes, the Republicans had several years in power this decade in which they could have pushed for reform but didn’t. But conservatives, including some Republican politicians, have for years produced numerous ideas for improving our health system and expanding access, some of which I’ve detailed on this blog.
These ideas are not, however, getting the kind of traction with Democrats that President Obama suggested in his speech to Congress last month, when he said “we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you [conservatives] may have.” At National Review Online, Deroy Murdock describes a host of GOP amendments to the Senate Finance Committee’s health bill — allegedly the most bipartisan of the Democrats’ bills, and the one said to resemble most closely the ideas Obama outlined in his speech — that Democrats voted down.
These amendments include explicit prohibitions on the use of federal funds for abortions and on rationing of care for the elderly; efforts to prevent waste and fraud, as the president says is necessary; expansions of health-savings accounts and other such tools; and requirements that members of Congress both enroll in the kinds of plans they are proposing for other Americans and allow a 72-hour delay between the official fiscal score on the bill and a Senate vote on it. Writes Murdock:
Democrats show zero interest in market-friendly, patient-centered ideas such as using refundable tax credits to make health insurance more affordable, granting universal access to health-savings accounts, or allowing Americans to buy health insurance across state lines (much as Democrats usually support the right of minors to cross state lines to receive abortions). Most Democrats spurn these ideas as threats to a gargantuan, bureaucratic system that will devour tax dollars and deliver sub-par care. Regardless of the government option’s shaky prognosis, when it comes to lower-cost GOP health-care proposals that actually could help patients, Democrats just say “No.”
The alternatives on health reform are not between action and inaction — or even, as I wrote last month, between government intervention and a tee-totally laissez-faire approach. At the New York Times, David Brooks describes the choices between his “friends” Mr. Bentham and Mr. Hume, although he casts the ideological division more broadly than just over health care:
This country is about to have a big debate on the role of government. The polarizers on cable TV think it’s going to be a debate between socialism and free-market purism. But it’s really going to be a debate about how to promote innovation.
Bentham, writes Brooks, will ultimately win because his approach is the one that lobbyists favor. Read the whole column and decide whether that’s a good a thing.
And finally, if you have some time on your hands, Gary Becker and Richard Posner weigh the merits of adopting elements of the Swiss health system here. The essays by the Nobel-winning economist Becker and the federal judge Posner are, as usual, lengthy but interesting.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2009 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
36 comments Add your comment
jconservative
October 6th, 2009
11:27 am
Fascinating. The David Brooks piece. Look at what it really says.
1) “The people on Mr. Bentham’s side believe that government can get actively involved…”
2) “The people on Mr. Hume’s side believe government should actively tilt the playing field…”
Notice both “options” require government to do something. Have we reached the point in this country where government must solve all problems?
Left wing management
October 6th, 2009
11:30 am
jconservative: “Have we reached the point in this country where government must solve all problems?”
Not necessarily, but with this one, you better believe it. There’s no other way. Do you consider it “government involvement” that you are forbidden by law to get in an automobile and drive it without first purchasing minimal auto insurance? If you do, then to be consistent you should be protesting against that just as much.
Left wing management
October 6th, 2009
11:38 am
Kyle Wingfield: “The biggest lie, falsehood, misinformation — whatever you want to call it — in our health-care debate has been that the Democrats are the only side that’s contributing ideas.”
Well, which is it, a lie, a falsehood, or just plain old misinformation? Not to be picky.
But, seriously, I’m glad you bring this up because it’s a fact that gets too little notice in the current debate, the media and journalistic establishments generally being as herd-like (in other words, plain old stupid) in their behavior as they are. The question is actually so simple that it must strike the majority of journalists and pundits as boring, and yet it is THE question to keep in mind at every point of the way in this debate: WHY is it that we are having this debate NOW? That is, WHY did 8 years of Republican rule come and go without serious action on this matter (Bush’s prescription drug bill was a half-measure and was really just a desperate stab at preserving the status quo)? The reason is simple: because the Republican administration in power during those 8 years felt – clearly reflecting the majority in their party – that the way things are is more or less okay. And THAT is the reason that it is perfectly reasonable to claim that Democrats occupy a position of action on this matter, while Republicans are in a (predictably) reactionary position. It’s that simple.
Down the Middle
October 6th, 2009
11:43 am
jconservative: “Have we reached the point in this country where government must solve all problems?”
We have reached the point in this country where ought to recognize that government solves some problems better then the private sector, e.g., hydroelectric power, social security, etc. and this is one of them.
sherri
October 6th, 2009
12:04 pm
Enter your comments here
America is the ONLY industrialized nation without a nationalized health care plan. Of the other 6 “capitalist countries”, only Sudan does not have some time of nationalized health care. Could it possibly be that the rest of the world is not wrong? The Republicans who publicly told people to buy foreign made vehicles during the cash for clunkers program, and are ecstatic that the Olympics are going to Rio instead of generating revenue for US workers do not have the best interests of this country at heart. That is why we are where we are. This is shameful.
Bebe99
October 6th, 2009
12:05 pm
When government creates a problem then it ususally does have to fix it. Allowing insurance companies and hospitals to become For-Profit entities, beholden more to their stockholders than the patients they should be serving, has created an unaffordable health care system. The truth is if the insurance companies were doing a great job with their product, we wouldn’t need the government to step in. But they are NOT-NOT-NOT. 70% of those who go bankrupt because of medical bills HAVE INSURANCE! For too long insurance companies have overcharged and underprovided. They are reaping what they’ve sown.
DebbieDoRight
October 6th, 2009
12:07 pm
Kyle you conveniently forgot to mention that all of the Republican ideas that the Democrats are trying to instigate, (Romney’s for instance), are being voted DOWN by republicans. They won’t even vote for their OWN members ideas. And, to top that off, they have YET to come out with any of their very own plan; they just want to trash whatever the Dems have to offer.
I find it intolerable when my friends mother, who is suffering from liver disease, can’t afford her medication to keep her alive. She’s 56 years old, not old enough for AARP, has a house so doesn’t qualify for SSI assistance, can’t get regular medical coverage, (pre-existing condition) and has to pay $4K a month for medicine to keep her alive so at least she can see her last child graduate from college. Yet you sit on your throne and SNEER about Dems trying to change a system that’s so dang busted, that Fortune 500 employers would rather take their jobs overseas then keep them here in America because the cost of healthcare is too high even for THEM to be able to afford it for their employees and make a profit.
Compassionate Conservatism indeed.
Ghetto Grandpa
October 6th, 2009
12:20 pm
Did you say “President” Obama?
Wow. Quite an admission.
I thought he was a nazi, socialist, muslim terrorist, who wants death panels to kill grandma as was illegally elected “President.”
But you cannot admit that maybe, just maybe, the GOP, Fox News and conservatives were wrong to fill the airwaves with claims of death panels, abortion on demand, etc., and that has really helped poison the debate. The GOP created a mess of this debate and now whine that the nazi muslim terrorist called Obama is not being bi-partisan? Please.
The GOP is much more interested in protecting the insurance industry and its profitability than helping Americans who don’t have jobs or are not paid enough to buy insurance get health care.
As long as American industries have to compete with companies from countries where health care is not a direct cost of doing business, our industries will always lose.
The GOP plan is the status quo. If they were interested in doing anything else, they could have done so when they controlled Congress and the White House.
Let’s admit it. The Dems have failed and the GOP does not want any changes. The status quo will prevail. Party time for Republicans. You should clebrate this like y’all celebrate Chicago losing the Olympics. Anything bad that happens to Obama is good for the GOP. Politics above country. Everytime. Its always the same with Dems or Republicans. Its in their nature.
If you don’t have insurance. The market will take care of you.
Right. Its working great, why change it?
Kyle Wingfield
October 6th, 2009
1:37 pm
petex: You raised some good points in your comment, but the personal insults went beyond what I allow on this blog. That’s why I took it down.
Kyle Wingfield
October 6th, 2009
1:58 pm
sherri: Honestly, I stopped reading your comment after the part about Sudan being a “capitalist country.” Find some better talking points.
Bebe99: Your first sentence was spot on. Government has created lots of problems in the health marketplace, including subsidizing only certain kinds of insurance (i.e. employer-sponsored plans) and mandating that plans cover services far beyond what any reasonable person would consider to be basic. The Democratic proposals don’t address most of these problems; they only pile onto them.
DebbieDoRight: Just off the top of my head, the Republicans have offered H.R. 3400 and S. 1099. Both of them include provisions that would help your friend’s mother. Like I said, the biggest misinformation out there is that only the Democrats have presented concrete plans.
Ghetto Grandpa: Even the president’s chief economic adviser, Christina Romer, has said the competitiveness angle is a “schlocky argument”…the fact is that employers and employees pay for health coverage one way or another, no matter how it’s provided.
Hillbilly Deluxe
October 6th, 2009
2:00 pm
Bebe 99 @12:05
Good point.
jt
October 6th, 2009
2:12 pm
Enter your comments here
In your previous article-
“Some ideology has been shed in favor of pragmatism.”
In this article-
“tee-totally laissez-faire approach. At the New York Times, David Brooks ……………………”
Your heart-breaking shift to the left has been noted.
What?
October 6th, 2009
2:35 pm
Dems, if you want to pass HC reform, do it! You have the House, Senate, and White House. Stop blaming the Repubs for everything. The fact is that a few common sense Dems are your roadblock, not “the party of No.” As far as the car insurance comparison goes, you do have the ability to “protest.” It’s called choosing not to drive. Driving without it is illegal because of the property damage you can force upon someone else. To me, not a problem if you don’t want health insurance, just don’t ask me to pay your bills when you are sick. Individual responsibility folks…..
Kyle Wingfield
October 6th, 2009
2:39 pm
jt: ?
I must have missed the proposal to scrap Medicaid and Medicare (not to mention the VA), end all tax credits and other subsidies for health insurance, end all government loans and grants for medical education, etc.
Jon but not Jon Voight
October 6th, 2009
2:57 pm
But what Republican contributions get the most play? 1. Government run health care! 2. Death panels! 3. You lie! Illegal immigrants get free health care. Be real. We might take Republicans more seriously if they would stop the grandstanding. But they just can’t help themselves.
Roger
October 6th, 2009
3:18 pm
Enter your comments here
Have you ever tried to get an answer from City Hall, any State or Federal Agency within in a reasonable time frame. Just think what amount of time a decision on your Health care will take under a Government run plan. The bureaucracy will be huge with all the desks a request will have to go through to get approval. Also how much will this cost?; not only for the health coverage, but including the extra taxes to cover the salaries of all the new bureaucrats and all those not paying any income taxes now that is below the poverty line and illegal aliens/
Chris Broe
October 6th, 2009
3:21 pm
I wonder if Lyle Stingfeeler believes even one stinking word of anything he writes. So, it’s the democrats who don’t want healthcare.
Phasers on stun. (wide field)
Cutty
October 6th, 2009
3:35 pm
One of the republicans biggest talking points is being able to buy insurance coverage across state lines. I have two questions about this: 1) Isn’t this a matter for the states since they regulate insurance companies within their jurisdiction? 2) How would buying insurance from say Alabama be any cheaper when the insurance companies are running monopolies in most states? BC/BS of Georgia is the same as BC/BS of Arizona. How would this lower costs?
Some form of Health-Savings Accounts are available now, and the rich are the only ones that can benefit from this due to the skyrocketing costs. Socking away $200 a month is a drop in the bucket in terms of paying for healthcare.
The republicans ARE providing ideas, but it seems like the ideas they’re offering is nothing more than providing insurance companies with more customers. Nothing that will actually lower the costs.
Mutts R Stupid
October 6th, 2009
3:39 pm
Medicaid was designed to provide basic health care to the poor, but the old folks lobby has hijacked Medicaid as a nursing home benefit, sucking up approximately 80% of the money. Let’s stop funding Long Term Care and calling it health care. The system we have works just fine for all but the poor, so let us return Medicaid to its original purpose, providing health care to the poor. Old people are getting a free ride on the Medicaid bandwagon, at the expense of everyone else. Old people have Medicare for health care, but they also want long term care, which was excluded from Medicare as being too expensive. By robbing Medicaid to provide LTC, old people are cheating other people out of basic health care.
jt
October 6th, 2009
3:42 pm
Enter your comments here
“jt
I must have missed the proposal to scrap Medicaid and Medicare (not to mention the VA), end all tax credits and other subsidies for health insurance, end all government loans and grants for medical education, etc.”
Alas, Mr. Wingfield ,
you did not miss the proposals,
you ignored their possibility.
It is never too late.
Frank
October 6th, 2009
3:46 pm
Kyle….I think you are dead wrong in your assertions here. I will admit I am a bit of a socialist, but when it comes to healthcare, you have to be. There should be an NHS like in England. 1 payer, 1 system that EVERYONE can use. It’s just a matter of WHEN, not if, this will occur in the USA. We’re coming and we will prevail. Patience is a virtue.
HDB
October 6th, 2009
5:02 pm
Mr. Wingfield: Insurance across state lines wouldn’t work because each state has differing regulations. If what you propose occured, health care would be further rationed for certain coverages in New York would not be covered in Alabama….and the costs would be passed to those purchasing New York coverage, thereby INCREASING health care costs.
Also, the GOP is pushing tort reform; that doesn’t work either!! Look at Texas: it has capped judgments, which has done nothing to lower costs! In fact, costs have increased due to doctors knowing that their profits would increase even though a judgment for malfeasance could be won against them.
What is needed in this nation is a single-payer HMO with insurance to cover catastrophic illnesses WITHOUT pre-existing conditions!! If we are the only indusrialized nation without universal health care, what does that say about the mentality and ethics of the USA??
Mutts R Stupid
October 6th, 2009
5:07 pm
Notice how the dummycrats all want someone else to pay for their health care, some single payer, or at least some nameless insurance company, and all for very low premiums. Interesting note: Reportedly, some 60% of the population of Texas is now obese. That is right, the Texas cowboys, cowgirls, and their offspring are now mostly obese, mostly. I certainly would not a write health insurance policy for an obese person, at any price.
Edwin Burgh
October 6th, 2009
6:11 pm
“Notice how the dummycrats all want someone else to pay for their health care, some single payer, or at least some nameless insurance company, and all for very low premiums.”
Please – EVERYONE wants someone else to pay for their health care and all for very low premiums. A tiny fraction of the population has the financial wherewithal to pay for their own health care.
Left wing management
October 6th, 2009
6:56 pm
Mutts R Stupid: “Notice how the dummycrats all want someone else to pay for their health care, some single payer, or at least some nameless insurance company, and all for very low premiums”
Remember Mutts. The price of the thing COMES DOWN as you and I sign up for it (we’re talking about insurance here, not the health care itself, you understand). You see, the price has the participation of all or non-participation built in from the outset as it were, because you see, we’re talking about mathematical formulas here in effect.
It’s all these insanely complex numerical formulas that we modern people live by – that’s the rub.
Hey, Mr. Wingfield. Listen to Frank here. He’s got it exactly right: “I will admit I am a bit of a socialist, but when it comes to healthcare, you have to be.”
That’s right folks, it’s a socialist idea (or at least social democratic) and it’s comin to a legislature near you. Get your drawls and lazy bones ready.
Artatlarge
October 6th, 2009
7:28 pm
Once again, Mr. Wingfield has turned fact upside down.
If anyone needs additional proof that it is the Republicans who are the party of NO, just look to their cheers regarding the elimination of Chicago as the site for the Olympics.
Or, consider Jim DeMint’s remark that the failure of health-care reform would be President Obama’s “Waterloo.”
Or, consider the wide-spread falsehoods and lies spread by Republican politicians concerning health care reform. Has any Republican publicly denied Michelle Bachmann’s claim that elementary-school “sex clinics” would whisk young girls away for abortions during the school day? Has any one of them denounced John Boehner’s claim that the public option is as “popular as a garlic milkshake” when even his home state has a support level of at least 63%, or that he has never even heard from one single supporter of the public option? (I know that he has heard from at least one supporter of the public option because I got his D.C. phone number and called him).
What few proposals the Republicans have made don’t do much to solve the current problem, and do much to maintain the status quo. Tax credits for the purchase of health insurance won’t do the people who need insurance the most any good; expecting poor people to take the deduction and buy insurance is highly unrealistic. Robbing Peter to pay Paul doesn’t work if Peter doesn’t have any money either.
Max Baucus’ plan had to be revised already to increase the subsidy for the middle-class, as they would not have qualified for any subsidy at all while continuing to face the spiraling cost of insurance.
Tort reform is similarly a solution that is no solution at all. Capping lawsuit awards in the face of gross negligence and incompetence will not lower costs, or premiums for malpractice insurance. All that tort reform will guarantee is that bad doctors will operate with near-impunity, while innocent lives are ended or ruined, with damage awards that will evaporate quickly and leave people broken, impoverished, and suffering until death. These capped awards are a pittance in the face of the continuing medical needs of the victims of malpractice. Should you be crippled or paralyzed by a bad doctor, how far would $300,000 maximum do you if you still owe $150,000 on your house and then require private nursing care in-home or at a facility for the rest of your days?
The simple fact is that most of the politicians who are pushing for a continuation of a for-profit, free-market plan have been recipients of major insurance industry donations and are now giving the companies what they have paid for. Denying the public option will consign more and more people to having to deal with companies whose main motive is profit. Simply requiring everyone to purchase insurance will not decrease cost or increase accountability…all it will do is make sure that the health-insurance companies will have even MORE people to charge premiums. It is not an increase in competition; it is a mandated increase in their customer base.
The re-working of rules concerning pre-existing conditions and a stop to excessive recissions certainly did not come from the GOP, either.
No, the Republicans had years and years to do something and all they did was enable the insurance companies to rake in obscene profits, pay huge salaries, and rob the average person. Claims denial, termination of coverage, and refusal to cover pre-existing conditions persisted during times of rate increases that surpassed the rate of inflation by leaps and bounds.
The Republicans are, despite Mr. Wingfield’s claim, the party of “NO.”
“NO” to the public option. “NO” to the legitimacy of President Obama. “NO” to the Federal spending that saved us from entering a second Great Depression. “NO” to alternative energy sources (among Reagan’s first acts was to cut funding for alternative energy research, and George Bush had solar panels removed from the White House roof). “NO” to waiting for U.N. inspectors to make sure that Iraq had no wmd. “NO” to environmental protection that would have outlawed mountain-top removal mining. “NO” to stopping the consolidation of media resources in the hands of a few of the ultra-rich like Rupert Murdoch.
“NO” to gov’t regulations that would have not allowed the too-large-to-fail banks to trade in the paper-only scams that sunk the economy.
It has been “NO” to ideas that would have protected the environment, the economy, the job market, and the public.
Instead, the have said “YES” to corporate piracy, “YES” to the rape of the environment, “YES” to the short-sighted all-or-nothing dependency upon fossil fuels and the theocracies that happen to sit above oil fields, “YES” to the politics of personal destruction (Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson), and “YES” to tax cuts that enriched the wealthiest 2% of the population while decreasing gov’t revenue.
They have said “NO” in all the wrong places, and “YES” in all the wrong places.
Who pays for it? NOT THEM.
Taelasky
October 6th, 2009
7:54 pm
Three Points:
1st – to Kyle HR3400 was just a rework of HR3200. I read both. The only real difference was HR3400 added the ban on abortion funding which really is not needed since the Hyde amendment already prohibits federal funding of abortions. And it proposed no new funding sources and offered many of the same as HR3200.
2nd to Roger. I have contacted City Hall and gotten very prompt responses. If you truly want to see what government healthcare looks like just look at Medicare. While not perfect, show many any senior that will drop their Medicare coverage and by private insurance. My grandmother, who is 91 years old, does great on Medicare. Never has a problem with any treatment her doctor prescribes. The only true issue is the cost of her medicine. And that is due to the fact that Medicare is prohibited, due to the Bush’s Prescription Drug Coverage, from negotiating better prices with the pharmaceutical companies. Canada, which has no such prohibition has much lower drug costs.
3rd – Again to Kyle… you indicated that you stopped reading Shari’s post… Hopefully you won’t stop reading mine. I’m not sure where she got her information but the article I read indicated that only 3 industrialized nations do not offer some form of universal coverage. Those being the US, Mexico, and South Africa. South Africa has just recently started looking into offering universal coverage. They hope to have it within 3 years. Even China will be offering univeral health insurance. I believe the deadline for that is 2011. At any rate this is going to leave American companies and American workers at a huge disadvantage compared to their counterparts in other countries. We already know that small companies, mom and pop shops especially, are at a disadvantage when it comes to competing with large American firms due to the cost of health insurance and as the cost of health care increase from $16,000 now to close to $36,000 per year by 2016, even large American companies are going to suffer. Which means workers will suffer.
To offer a slightly different alternative, I suggest you take a look at the Australian system. The offer a combination of public and private which complement each other and ensures that everyone has basic health care where allowing those who can afford it the ability to pay to see more experienced doctors or get better hospital rooms, etc.
Kevin
October 6th, 2009
8:47 pm
Health care is not an insurance market friendly business. Insurers make their money by investing the surplus they have after covering the costs of care for their customers. So here comes the million dollar question…how do I make money on someone who has chronic health issues and no money to pay for the care they need? Put simply, you cannot. So there is no incentive for an insurance company to take care of that person. Hence we have the idea of a public option whose sole purpose is not to make profit, but to provide a service. The idea of government involvement is to provide those services for which there is a social need, but for which there not a competitive market. And for those who would say that we have no control over government, last time I looked this was a representative democracy where everybody has the right to vote.
Michael Honohan
October 6th, 2009
9:42 pm
I can answer this question! The Republicrats. I am amazed as the debate where both Republicans and Democrats each think their party is on track and has all the answers and the other side is completely wrong! Fact of the matter is nothing coming out of the Congress on health care bears any resemblence to reform of the system other than what is good for the insurance industry. Even a “public option” would in the end likely be “administered by insurance companies – as soons as Republicans got in power the first thing they would do with any public option would be to privitize it.
And who really believes “subsidizing” insurance premiums is in any way going to cost taxpayers less money? Via indigent care payments to hospitals, taxpayers are already paying the “free enterprise system” 5 to 10 times as much as they would if sensible publicly funded, community based clinic system was put into place using those same funds.
So you partisan hacks (who combined represent a minority of voting eligible citizens, keep arguing about it. The blind aruging with the stupid.
Speaking of stupid, someone really needs to shine some reality with so-called conservatives – those of the Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck crowd.
1) You do not represent the majority. The majority of us are socially liberal/fiscally conservative. You think you believe what we do, but you don’t really know anything about such matters.
2) You do not even represent those numbers Rush and Beck get. Turns out many of those numbers are not “followers”, they are people from the middle and the left who think those guys are hilarious. Truth is Glen Beck is a bafoon and he knows it. If you turn off Fox News and look at his books, you will find its all a joke to him. He loves to print the bad reviews on the dust jacket! He is laughing at you all the way to the bank!
3) No one really cares what you believe except for Democrats who are too stupid to realize they are in complete power now. I don’t know who is dumber between you two! Wost Independents believe in small government, lower taxes, balanced budgets, strong defense. But you retards let Bush and the Republicans deliver nothing. The previous 8 years were nothing but corrutption and incompetence. We didn’t elect Obama because he is black, or because the media made him into a Rock Star, we voted him in because we couldn’t possibly stomach 4 more years of a Republicans in the White House. Now you are all crying as if Obama has been in office for 8 years and created this mess.
Oh, rest assured between Obmama’s irrational fear of what Republicans say about him and the the fact that your party let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid take over (of course the GOP saw the mess was coming, good time to bail.) Those two will happily lead us down the continued path of self descruction and self-loathing. In the meantime, instead of looking to intellectual talent in your party, you still embrace the buffoons who have driven your party into its marginal state. Despite all their blathering, you could not stop McCain from getting nominated. Then instead of getting someone smart like Romney on the ticket, you threw a tantrum that you would stay home from the polls until they put the cream puff Palin on the ticket. Sure she “saved” millions of votes, but the real electors, my fellow independents ran to the other camp quick. Better an intelligent liberal than a semi-literate conservative.
4) Lets not forget the real reasons your ilk opposes health care. While every politcian’s argument against it has been debunked, the opinions of the right-wing masses make it very clear. No matter what Jesus said in the Bible most of you claim you read and believe in (Ha!), you would rather see your neighbor die than spend an extra dime to help him. So many of you have said as much publicly over and over again: “Not my Tax Dollars!”
Do you partisan hacks EVER read the crap you post and see how stupid it all is?
Michael H. Smith
October 6th, 2009
9:55 pm
This country is about to have a big debate on the role of government. The polarizers on cable TV think it’s going to be a debate between socialism and free-market purism. But it’s really going to be a debate about how to promote innovation.
Yeah, okay. The big debate has already been going on for some time, there really is no “about to” in the equation and the polarizers are not limited to cable TV, radio or newsprint. In fact, Congress seems to do a better than fair job of dividing the country into extremes as though no one has noticed and Obumer is no blessed peace maker for all his talk of extending olive branches. The “about how to” really is between socialism – insert fettered capitalism – and free-market purism a.k.a. laissez-faire liberalism, more so than the quintessential innovation – should we ever actually find “innovation” once again in America – which will define the role of government.
Oh but did you notice Kyle that all the comments which have been made up until now have been the proverbial “either”, “or”, and nothing else?
It makes the mind wonder how some rural communities ever got electricity without a Big Socialist Government PUBLIC OPTION when those greedy electric companies wouldn’t provide service to those customers at an affordable price?
Ooooo, whadya know, they just use some old fashion “i-n-n-o-v-a-t-i-o-n” and formed their own COOPERATIVE electric company to fill in the gap that existed between the government and the private sector to get their own electricity at a price they could afford.
Smiles for miles.
bob
October 7th, 2009
7:56 am
leftwing, comparing liability auto insurance to gov mandated healthcare is pretty weak. Letting gov take over that big of an industry should be based on a stronger argument than that.
bob
October 7th, 2009
8:10 am
down the middle, you think Social Security is something to brag about ? Look at your annual SS statement, this is what it says on page 1, ” Social Security is a compact between generations. For decades, America has kept the promise of security for it’s workers and their families. Now, however, the Social Security system is facing serious financial problems, and action is needed soon to make sure the system will be sound when today’s younger workers are ready for retirement.
In 2017 we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2041 the Social Security trust fund will be exhausted and there will be enough money to pay only about 78 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits.
You want these guys running healthcare ? Could you tell us what the SS commisioner meant when he said the trust fund will be exhausted ? The gov has no trust fund, the SS money has been part of the general budget since LBJ. Gov cannot even run a Ponzi scheme !
Jimmy62
October 7th, 2009
9:06 am
Let me explain the insurance across state lines thing. States do have individual regulations. And that’s fine, except that those regulations clearly inhibit interstate commerce. If I can’t buy something from another state because of a state regulation, then Congress has the Constitutionally-granted power (interstate commerce clause, and for once a very legitimate use in my view) to knock down those regulations. And they should. Kentucky, for instance, has a health plan that includes ONLY catastrophic coverage. I’d have to pay for checkups and minor illnesses out of pocket, and be covered for if I get cancer or something. That’s how insurance is supposed to work, if you go by the definition of it, you insure against unexpected disaster, not routine things like a cold. But I live in Georgia, and Georgia has regulations that both prevent me from buying that plan in Kentucky, and prevent anyone from offering a similar plan in Georgia. And that’s wrong. Fix that and a lot of things change. People will be forced to educate themselves, and eventually plans will be offered all over that have what people want and need, not what governments and insurance companies think they need.
And why haven’t we all heard more about the many great ideas being offered from the right? Because the media doesn’t want to cover them, or talk about them. It goes directly against their narrative of the party of no and all that BS.
As for the last 8 years, plenty of us have whined plenty about Bush and his spending and his abandoning of fiscally conservative principles. But that doesn’t mean we think a community organizer with former and fairly recent ties to socialist groups (undeniable, that’s what the New Party is) is going to suddenly be even better for fiscal conservatives than Bush was.
Hillbilly Deluxe
October 7th, 2009
10:14 am
Living in an REA co-op area and having worked for one several years, I should point out that they were Federally subsidized and they still get subsidized loans..
Michael Honohan
October 7th, 2009
3:28 pm
I can’t seem to pound this point hard enough. (There is should be a law requiring one to read the Federalist Papers) Our system was set up to levy taxes and use those taxes for the advantage of the American People. Marx’ socialism did not exist back then, only the words of John the Baptists. Our founders where not afraid of the concept of society working together via a government of the people. Like Lincoln said, By, of and FOR the people. What the hell do you think “For” meant?
BlueDemKev
October 9th, 2009
11:23 am
Kyle,
If the Republicans truly want to reform health care, why didn’t they do anything meaningful during the 12 years they controlled Congress?
Conservative Republicans want NO reform. They are bent on maintaining the status quo because they find it “immoral” that a millionaire should pay a ONE (1) percent surtax so others less fortunate can actually seek medical care without going bankrupt.