Listen up, Obama
Despite growing opposition, President Obama hasn’t given up on his plans for sweeping reforms—including a public option—in health care and health insurance. But if Obama would slow down and work on Medicare first, and actually succeed in cutting costs there, he could actually garner some bipartisan support for his plan as well as some perception that he might really know what he’s doing.
Of course, that would mean actually showing some concrete results in tackling a very knotty problem, not Obama’s strong suit.
I first found a good statement of the idea in the comments section here:
[The] President is mixing increase in coverage with cost reduction. Controlling Medicare cost is the fiscal reform imperative for Fed and that should be done independently of coverage increase. Go there, save some solid bundles for Government, earn the ”˜chips and credibility for fiscal management’ and then commit those saved resources for coverage increase. At that time public can accept some taxes to complete the funding of increased coverage. True, these two parts (controlling costs and increasing the coverage) can be tied together and the omnibus bill can be passed for legislative efficiency purposes as well as political expediency. But what is happening is [the] President is waving the candy first before earning necessary political capital by way of controlling the daemon of Health Care Costs.
Makes sense. But not to a president who’s never had to prove he can do anything before assuming he can do everything, and do it better than anyone else who’s gone before him—and having the world nod in agreement.
Here’s the same idea about fixing Medicare, this time expressed in article form.
The problem, of course, is that Obama has no more idea how to actually “fix” Medicare than he has to fix health insurance, or health care in general. What he wants is to pass a bill that appeals to his constituents, and to do it as fast as possible, before the opposition gets too powerful and the American people too aware of what’s happening and what its ramifications are.
The recent cost estimate by the Congressional Budget Office was a nightmare for Obama. It slowed down the juggernaut and made some people—even some Democrats—reflect and pull back. The CBO has a long-held reputation for objectivity, and that’s why Nancy Pelosi is now trying her hardest to discredit their projections of the cost of her (and Obama’s) pet project. Of course, few people (even among my liberal, female friends) think much of Pelosi and her own objectivity.
That would assume that Obama really thinks he can save money this way. I don’t think that’s the case. I think he knows that it’s going to be a hugely expensive change for the country, but he wants it to happen anyway. He believes that in the longest of long runs having people be secure in their government cradles will make them happier, and us a better people. Hope and Change are all part of a vision for an idealised future, in which we have less money (because we diverted so many resources into coerced good works), but are somehow more “prosperous” because we have better lives.
They never stop to contemplate what enormous waste and destruction this all is if that hoped-for glorious future doesn’t arrive.
I didn’t mean to in any way criticise your idea, neo. Using Medicare and/or the VA as a pilot program for the planned changes is of course precisely what an honest manager would be doing.
Assistant Village Idiot: I’m in agreement with you—I don’t think saving money is actually Obama’s goal. That’s one of the reasons he’s not taking this advice, as well as the reason he’s trying to rush things through. That’s why I wrote:
What he wants is to pass a bill that appeals to his constituents, and to do it as fast as possible, before the opposition gets too powerful and the American people too aware of what’s happening and what its ramifications are.
Regardless of Barack’s actual goals, isn’t he partially selling his program on the idea that costs will be cut? The calling Obama out part of Virginia Postrel’s message was sort of lost in the Washington Examiner’s editorial. She effectively calls Obama out via saying(paraphrasing from memory):
If he actually knows how to cut costs, then that is an unmitigated good and ought be done whether or not government gains control of healthcare. If he knows how to cut costs, why would he not go ahead and do that irregardless? And independently from any takeover of healthcare?
Thus she spotlights Obama’s lie in claiming he knows how to cut costs.
The Left’s answer to the Healthcare Problem is extreme and too expensive, yes. But the insurance companies have not helped their cause in this fight. How? By lobbying the situation over the years to where there is LESS competition among them for the consumer’s dollar and where there is LESS need for them to innovate to less expensive practices.
An example is embedded in a recent Krugman article:
Consider the seemingly trivial matter of making it easier for doctors to deal with multiple insurance companies.
Back in 1993, the political strategist (and former Times columnist) William Kristol, in a now-famous memo, urged Republican members of Congress to oppose any significant health care reform. But even he acknowledged that some things needed fixing, calling for, among other things, “a simplified, uniform insurance form.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/opinion/05krugman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion
I don’t agree with much of Krugman’s article but the fact is that standardized administrative transactions are only now being discussed by the insurance industry — with no guarantee that such a thing will ever actually happen.
There are many things the insurance industry could have done over the years to make their product less expensive and easier for the doctors, hospitals and the public to deal with — but those fat cats have done NOTHING except lobby against change or, Heaven forbid, real competition. Now they’re whining and extolling the virtues of private enterprise and predicting dire consequences if a so-called “public option” is enacted by this useless bunch we call the Congress.
As for the Republicans, THEY could have done something, anything to ease the plight of the average insurance consumer AND the non-covered when they held the reins — but they too have done NADA.
I’m for private enterprise but sometimes(especially when huge corporations are involved) the private sector seems uninterested in real competition or real innovation. What most insurance consumers have now are medical “plans.” The differences between these plans are for all practical purposes nonexistent. It’s as if the auto industry had tacitly agreed that all trucks would be F-150s, all sedans would be the same, all subcompacts would be the same, etc. — hmmm – come to think of it …
So here we are, with the distinct possibility that Congress is going to do their usual incompetent legislating of another social program which, if they succeed, will probably be the usual low-quality, myopic, CYA, protect the Big Boys and other influential constituents crap they usually foist off on us.
Uh-huh. Work on just one thing at a time. Only then, work on the next.
Course, given all of the problems we have, that means he gets to be President for, oh, twenty years.
Thanks!
Neo:
Of course, that would mean actually showing some concrete results in tackling a very knotty problem, not Obama’s strong suit.
That is the understatement of the month.
What happened to our friend Shepard?
Shepard must have gotten a new assignment.
Haha! That’s what I thought, Neo. I wonder what Shepard makes per hour?
I also wondered whether the name “Shepard” was an homage to the street artist Shepard Fairey, who created that creepy, totalitarian-styled Obama “Yes We Did” poster for Move On. My brother has a sticker of it on his fridge and it makes me shudder everytime I see it.
Fixing healthcare is actually fairly simple. First, make the cost of any service very clear to the consumer. Second, everyone has a dog in the fight. Make there be out-of-pocket cost for any service. Back in “The Day” (and I know ya’ll aren’t old enough to remember – especially the eternally youthful neo) we paid for any service. Insurance was for catastrophic care. Go back to that platform and costs will come down.
400,000 sick people, saved or cremated.
Obama is not at all interested in slowing down and building from a solid base. As for fixing Medicare, neither he nor his bureaucratic apparatchiks and czars are true tinkerers.
He is a man in a hurry. Nancy Pelosi is in a hurry. That should give people a clue as to what the people in power right now are thinking. If you are not asking yourself “why the hurry?” then you are not thinking this through to the logical, probable motives.
I think Soros and the oligarchs are in a hurry too.
All of these actors know something about the likely reaction to this program combined with a context of a failing economy: it means the Dems are in trouble in 2010 and beyond.
Obama is not a details man, therefore he couldn’t be bothered with trying to convince anyone that a fixed Medicare program would possibly mean the model could be applied to the wider society. He’s in a hurry because he’s a man on a mission to implement change before the opportunity is lost.
What we all must realize is that both political parties have failed the American insurance consumer. Take for example the Fix-Medicare-First folks — I agree totally. Yes indeed, show us that you can REALLY do it as cheap as you claim and start with a program already in place that everyone agrees is wasteful of the taxpayer’s dollar and has inefficiencies in the way it is administered.
But think for a moment — why weren’t they saying this when the Republicans were in power? It has been thought by many for years that Medicare could use some reforming. If it’s a valid stance now it was a valid stance before the Democrats came into power. Perhaps, just perhaps, if the Republicans hadn’t been sleeping with the insurance companies all along and had worked to make Medicare better when they had the chance the Democrats would not even have an issue today.
I see two basic problems that need addressing:
The non-covered need to be brought into the system BUT it can’t be free – it can’t be just another welfare perk. They need to pay — at least a little bit — no matter what their income. You don’t get Social Security Benefits unless you’ve contributed to the fund, even if you are as poor as a church mouse when you reach the end of your work-life, and government-provided healthcare should be the same.
The insurance companies should be put into a position where they have to compete and innovate with a cost-savings to the insurance consumer as the goal. This old crap of the insurance companies resting on their laurels has got to change and I don’t really care which party does it or how draconian the measures have to be. If the insurance companies did the right thing then maybe, just maybe, private insurance would be affordable now even for those whose income is modest. Perhaps much of the problem of the non-covered would go away. One of the reasons that the Lefties think they have a mandate today is because the politicians and the insurance companies have been complacent in the past.
I have said long ago that the mentality of such leaders is that they know that to change the system to improve it will cause pain. the problem is that they cant tell the difference between constructive pain and destructive pain. since they wish such sweeping reformations they know they will cause pain, and the people crying is what they expect. so like a doctor and a parent wanting to give a kid a needle, no matter how much or how extreme the child acts to get away, its going to get that pain. once patriarchy moves from head of family to head of state, we beome children and they stick us with lots of needles of improvement that cause the reverse, and the need for more needles to get it right.
Anyone who lays the healthcare problem at the Repubs’ feet is seriously myopic and/or uninformed.
LBJ and the Dems “gave” us Medicare in 1965, while I was in medical school, and then the Dems stole (they say borrowed) the $$$ in the Medicare Trust Fund. The Dems gave us HMOs–that required enabling legislation. In response came the PPOs, etc. Medicare reimbursement limits, including the hospital DRG payments, forced cost-shifting to the private sector insurors. That led to discount pressure on nominal fees by insurors on providers, this cascade resulting in obscene hospital charges on the few uninsured. Federal law mandates ER services for all comers, regardless of ability to recover costs of care, a terrific unfunded mandate. So docs and hospitals have responded—how often do you want to get up in the middle of the night knowing you will get paid nothing for “caring” for mankind’s worst specimens?
We have been in nannystate health care for a long time.
What is needed is true competition by providers with respect to ease of access,outcomes, and cost (see http://www.minuteclinic.com), and true catastrophic insurance. But the Dems hate HSAs.
Ultimately, Federalization of health care is just another Ponzi, like Social Security.
The first part of fixing any problem is accurate information. We need to find out how much the country spends on medical liability insurance. We need to find out how much the insurers pay out, and we need the information broken down by settlement versus bench trial versus jury trial. We need histograms showing how many payouts there are for each range of payout. And we need to find out the process costs. including the costs of trials, including the trial lawyers
My guess is that when these costs are layered on each other, they account for more than twenty-five percent of the cost of health care. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the numbers up around fifty percent.
You’re leaving out the costs of defensive medicine, which are enormous.
But Obonga and his Capitol Hill ilk don’t want data. They don’t need data. They know what we need, nationalized single payor, and it works in some countries, they say, though unable to name them.
“But if Obama would slow down and work on Medicare first…”
I couldn’t have imagined such utter incompetence, but now I see that the reality of his presidency is far far worse.
Nope. I don’t want Obama to work on anything anymore. I just want him to go away.
If Obama had ever had to demonstrate his ability to do anything before moving on to the next step, he’d still a obscure, little flunkie in Chicago.
Neo- I suspect you could develope some sort of physchological theory of the President and his staff off Democratic party insider George Stephanopoulos’ comments that the White House is obsessed with Fox News. This reminds me of the attacks on Rush. Newsbusters has a couple of articles up about this as well as the artificial “dust bowl” out West. You can scroll down and find the articles here : http://www.newsbusters.org/
Anyone who lays the healthcare problem at the Repubs’ feet is seriously myopic and/or uninformed.
Tom, if you are referring to me I thought I was clear that BOTH parties have failed — that’s different than laying the “healthcare problem at the Repubs’ feet.” Do you give the Republicans a totally clean bill of health on this issue? Tom, don’t let party loyalty blind you to the realities. IMO, if the Republicans had acted more responsibly when they had the chance things might now be different.
The Republicans fancy themselves as better than the Democrats and in some things like national defense they ARE better. But while Medicare may have been started by the Democrats that doesn’t mean that the Republicans were forbidden to improve or even replace the program with something better when they had the votes to do so.
Tom, both parties have been in the insurance industry’s back pocket for a long time. BTW, I went to the link and liked what I saw — CVS is to be commended because they seem to have a good thing going. I also like what Wal-Mart is doing with their generics. If only the insurance companies and the politicians would approach the problem(because there IS a problem) in the same spirit.
In a certain sense I don’t even blame the insurance industry too much — after all, in our system they are entitled to lobby on behalf of their industry — I wouldn’t attempt to change that. But they have made their bed and shouldn’t now be whining. Perhaps if they had acted better in the past they wouldn’t be under the gun now.
The politicians are the group I have complete contempt for — they are supposed to resist lobbying and act in the public’s interest when it comes down to certain issues.
Lastly, I lay no blame at the feet of the doctors. Of all the actors in this miserable play they have hit their marks and said their lines the best. I work with medical doctors of all disciplines and know what a dedicated group they are. We are lucky to have them. They deserve every cent they get. That goes for all those up and down the medical caregiver hierarchy — the nurses, aides, etc.
Its lie on top of lie on top of lie… They can’t save 30% (if they do it will be by paying below market rates and making the private part of the market subsidise them), 40-50 million Americans do not lack insurance if you count government coverage that already exists… et cetera et cetera…
grackle Says:
“Tom, don’t let party loyalty blind you to the realities. IMO, if the Republicans had acted more responsibly when they had the chance things might now be different.”
A lot of the blame I think your putting on republicans should go to the insurance industry. They let this build up. They could have cut it off at the pass years ago by having a plan. Its not really for politicans to fix these problems. Most don’t know enough about the issues involved to do anything but screw it up more.
grackle Says:
” Perhaps, just perhaps, if the Republicans hadn’t been sleeping with the insurance companies all along and had worked to make Medicare better when they had the chance the Democrats would not even have an issue today. ”
PS
I think medicare is a cluster and don’t have ideas on how to fix it… hence, fix medicare first.
Hi folks,
I have been, for the last several days, unable to post for some reason. I assumed it was due to a block by this blog’s author. If it was not, I apologize for assuming so.
Short of abandoning my anonymity, which I have no plans to do, I have no real way of proving to you that I receive no compensation for posting comments on blogs. I wish! I’ll simply say two things about this:
First, people comment on blogs. People disagree with each other in blog comments. Assuming that people are paid to disagree with you in blog comments is silly. Does this not strike you as something of a conspiracy theory? Can’t a person disagree simply because he or she disagrees? You’re, in essence, blocking any real dialogue or free debate of ideas before it even happens by assuming that my arguments are made in bad faith. They’re not. They’re made, free of charge, in good faith. I don’t know why I keep coming back, but I do have some sense that I can actually engage in a debate in which minds might be changed.
Second, you (you, personally, the individual reading this) and the community of bloggers here are not nearly important enough to warrant the attention of paid agents provocateur. I honestly have trouble believing that any blog, short of (at the extreme of probability) the top one or two most trafficked blogs, receiving any attention from anyone as busy as the those working in the White House, etc. Sorry to burst your bubble, but please, have some humility.
(Just so you know, people chatting on the moonbattiest of leftie blogs, such as IndyMedia, were fond of accusing people with whom they disagreed as agents of COINTELPRO or some such. You remind of them. For the sake of your dignity, stop.)
Hey guys:
Repubs have had legislative power in DC for about 20% of the last 50 years, Dems 80%. Medicare and Social Security were Dem ideas. I cannot help but remember the Dems (Barney, for one) telling Bush the entitlement schemes were not about to break, so leave ’em alone, speaking of Soc Sec which is a lot bigger bust than Medicare. Said the same of Fannie Mae, too. Dems don’t fix things, they make them worse, taking the money and running.
Ever hear of anti-trust? Insurance companies cannot legally connive toward any end, even a noble one.
Repubs in bed with insurors? Give me a fact, not an allegation, please.
Lobbying is in effect petitioning for a redress of grievances (is that phrase at all familiar?). Why donate big bucks to campaign funds? To get something you want done. Duh!
FWIW, I am less than a devoted Repub. Bitterly disappointed with the McCain side of the GOP. But I am a staunch anti-Dem, and would not cross the aisle for any reason. I despise the lying liars who are Dems, and most of them are liars or the running dogs of liars. That includes our President, our Liar-In-Chief.
Hey guys:
Repubs have had legislative power in DC for about 20% of the last 50 years, Dems 80%. Medicare and Social Security were Dem ideas.
Tom, the GOP has had very strong minorities most of the time you cite. And much of that time there have been Republican Presidents to balance out that Congressional power. I guess it depends how you define “legislative power.” The Dems have never had filibuster-proof majorities as they do now and have always had to work with the other side of the aisle until now.
I cannot help but remember the Dems (Barney, for one) telling Bush the entitlement schemes were not about to break, so leave ‘em alone, speaking of Soc Sec which is a lot bigger bust than Medicare. Said the same of Fannie Mae, too. Dems don’t fix things, they make them worse, taking the money and running.
I can see you are not a fan of Medicare and Social Security. With some reservations, I favor both programs, especially Social Security, which I consider the most successful social reform ever enacted in the US. I know that my father, a wonderful person and hard worker all his life but with only a 4th grade education was pretty much saved from total destitution in his later years by Social Security. Purchasing expensive medical insurance was out of the question so Medicare was also a savior.
Ever hear of anti-trust? Insurance companies cannot legally connive toward any end, even a noble one.
Please, the insurance companies, like any other group, can lobby for advantage in Congress. Anti-trust legal actions are mainly directed toward monopolies obtained through competition deemed unfair(monopolies per se are not prohibited) and conspiracies, as in different companies getting together in a back room to fix prices or rig bids. Tacit price-fixing, such as business competitors simply observing the pricing of product in a particular industry and using that observation to influence their own prices can’t legally be touched. Classic conspiracy is not needed for the near uniformity of product that now exists with medical insurance. And most law in this area can be excepted by Congress and state legislators, who enact the laws in the first place.
Repubs in bed with insurors? Give me a fact, not an allegation, please.
Both parties have been in bed with the lobbyists. If you think the Republicans have not been influenced by lobbying then nothing I have to say will be persuasive to you. I must say that to me it seems a very naé¯ve attitude. I can offer only indirect evidence, such as the citation from the Krugman article I linked to earlier. I have no team of investigators or the ability to wiretap.
Lobbying is in effect petitioning for a redress of grievances (is that phrase at all familiar?). Why donate big bucks to campaign funds? To get something you want done. Duh!
Like I’ve stated before, I am not against lobbying per se. In fact I believe in most cases lobbying serves good purposes, as in informing members of Congress on various aspects of a particular issue — it’s unreasonable to expect every member of Congress to be an expert on everything. It’s not the institution of lobbying that’s gotten out of hand with the healthcare issue — it’s up to the pols to apply common sense and balance the public good with private interests no matter how hard they’ve been lobbied. Campaign donations are an issue separate from the thrust of my comments — another debate for another day.
FWIW, I am less than a devoted Repub. Bitterly disappointed with the McCain side of the GOP. But I am a staunch anti-Dem, and would not cross the aisle for any reason. I despise the lying liars who are Dems, and most of them are liars or the running dogs of liars. That includes our President, our Liar-In-Chief.
Tom, has the thought ever crossed your mind that if you and others who think like you had been more enthusiastic toward the GOP’s nominee that the election results might have been different? It takes more than a reluctant and carping acceptance to win an election. I voted for McCain too and I did so enthusiastically, even though I did not agree with him on every issue, because I knew he was a better choice than Obama.
I guess where we really part company is your apparent belief that lying is endemic only to Democrats. They all lie, Tom.
Grackle, ol’ bird, of course I voted for McCain, and sent my $ to the GOP. Maybe that mitigates reluctance and carping, as you so elegantly put it. But not because I felt good about McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy.In my view, career legislators (e.g. Senators) seldom make good public leader-executives (e.g. Presidents) precisely because their m.o. has always been to cut deals collegially with the other side.
Leaders can never tell the whole truth, obviously. But there is an issue of scale to political lying, which the lying Dems win, going away.
Me opposed to Medicare and Social Security? Yes, because of political mismanagement (I have dealt with Medicare issues at high political levels) and because they have, for demographic reasons, gradually turned into huge Ponzis.
I am gonna tag you as a RINO. Wear the label proudly while you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Grackle, ol’ bird, of course I voted for McCain, and sent my $ to the GOP. Maybe that mitigates reluctance and carping, as you so elegantly put it. But not because I felt good about McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy.In my view, career legislators (e.g. Senators) seldom make good public leader-executives (e.g. Presidents) precisely because their m.o. has always been to cut deals collegially with the other side.
I guess another of our differences is that I sent my money to McCain/Palin but not a cent to the GOP. Tom, if you can only feel good about a Presidential candidate that agrees with you on every issue then you may be due for much more disappointment than you must have already suffered.
Leaders can never tell the whole truth, obviously. But there is an issue of scale to political lying, which the lying Dems win, going away.
On this matter of lying, aren’t you talking mainly about divergent opinion and mistakes in judgement? In your opinion some Democrats were wrong on the state of entitlement schemes, Social Security, Medicare, Fannie Mae, etc., so they were lying. Aren’t you demonizing political decisions and beliefs by calling them lies? To paraphrase: I have my principled opinions and they have their lies. Tom, I have followed your comments on this blog for a long time(years?) and believe you to be a sincere, intelligent and caring person. I ask you to entertain the notion that the opposition is as sincere in their beliefs as you are in yours. The Daily Kos folks really believe all that crap, Tom. You and I both think it’s a pant-load, you much more than me, I suppose, but I guess they probably think the same of our philosophies.
I know at one time, during the Reagan years I believe, that there was an initiative floated by the Republicans to privatize Social Security by allowing investment of the contributions in the stock market. Considering what’s happened with stocks in the past year I think such a plan has to be viewed as an error in judgement — thank goodness the Dems shot that one down, eh? — but I fall short of calling Republicans liars for pushing a policy that in hindsight would have proven disastrous to millions of the elderly and their families.
Me opposed to Medicare and Social Security? Yes, because of political mismanagement (I have dealt with Medicare issues at high political levels) and because they have, for demographic reasons, gradually turned into huge Ponzis.
I think there are problems with Medicare and Social Security but I also believe that if the opposing sides were able to abandon their entrenched positions both programs could be improved.
I am gonna tag you as a RINO. Wear the label proudly while you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Tom, it’s only possible to be a Republican In Name Only if you profess to be a Republican. I am not a Republican and have never claimed to be. I’m an independent who has usually voted Republican, primarily for reasons of national defense.
As far as solutions are concerned it seems to me that the Republicans are running out of a constituency whose votes would allow them to enact solutions. The focus in recent years by the GOP on moral and religious issues in lieu of issues of governance and an aversion toward any kind of compromise is turning off some important voting blocs — such as the Latinos, the gays, women and young people in general.
Whatever happened to limited government, a free enterprise economy and a strong national defense? It seems to me these sensible and attractive issues have been drowned out under a deluge of making sure the gays don’t marry, the Mexicans don’t set foot over the border and that the religious and other bona fides of candidates be established to the satisfaction of Coulter, Malkin and El Rushbo.
“I know at one time, during the Reagan years I believe, that there was an initiative floated by the Republicans to privatize Social Security by allowing investment of the contributions in the stock market. Considering what’s happened with stocks in the past year I think such a plan has to be viewed as an error in judgement — thank goodness the Dems shot that one down, eh?”
Actually, no, we would have still been better off with it privatised in the stock market. Look at the market indexes from back then vs now – even at its worst.
I will agree many would have felt cheated to go from (lets make up some numbers – they are going to simply be even numbers to show what I’m talking about) from 100,000 to 500,000 to 250,000 whilst many would feel they got a great deal if they put in 100,000 and ended up with 200,000.
However they would have been better off with it privatized. Indeed, people who have been putting into the stock market from a number of years ago still have a substantial amount of value increase – greater than mere interest would have gotten them. Yes, they have lost a great deal from their highest worth, but that doesn’t mean it was a bad investment.
Now, the people who recently switched over (or recently invested) expecting a quick return when they retire in 5-10 years got screwed, but then “quick bucks” are always risky. If they sit for a 30 year investment (as your SS money is) then it will work out and if it doesn’t, well lets just say the country is so screwed it doesn’t matter where your money is.
Indeed, were I allowed to right now I would certainly put it there – by the time I retire I will have made MUCH more that way even if I have a few major losses as it goes forward. My mutual funds got hit hard, yet they will still have made quite a bit of money by the time I retire.
Ol’ bird: Lies are not differences of opinion, nor differences in forecasting future outcomes. Lies are intentional misrepresentations of the truth.
A good example is “the 40 million Americans (aka “of us”) who don’t have health insurance”. “American” in this context is a big lie by the definition I live by because it includes Latin Americans, some 10-12 million here illegally. The non-insured also include the millions of healthy 20-somethings who don’t buy it because they don’t need it, in a free choice that affords them more iPhones and dates and takeout food. Plus those millions who are between jobs but will return to coverage within the year. So we’re gonna convulse US healthcare, 17% of GDP, with enormous employment, for the maybe 15 million who don’t have it and can’t get it? That’s 5% of the population. Based on lies, or, if you prefer, gross oversimplifications, but intentionally done . Purpose: power grab; soft totalitarianism.
It is all well and good for you to favor the GOP for reasons of national defense. But to shrug your shoulders about illegal immigration, for example, is to shrug off the law of the land. That shruggery (to coin a word that rhymes with thuggery) has far-reaching implications; if the law isn’t enforced here, why enforce it there? That has recently happened in the UK. The overworked, handicapped and p.c. constabulary decided some 130 types of crime by existing statute would not longer be investigated nor prosecuted.
I am happy to discuss, even debate, anything. But we must agree on common definitions such as “What is a lie?”.
Grackle, earlier: “I know at one time, during the Reagan years I believe, that there was an initiative floated by the Republicans to privatize Social Security by allowing investment of the contributions in the stock market. Considering what’s happened with stocks in the past year I think such a plan has to be viewed as an error in judgement — thank goodness the Dems shot that one down, eh?”
Actually, no, we would have still been better off with it privatised in the stock market. Look at the market indexes from back then vs now – even at its worst.
But by telling the readers to look at “market indexes” aren’t you basing your assertion on the performance of ALL stocks/bonds during the last, say, 20 years(you don’t bother to define the time period)? Even allowing you may be correct(you offer no links or raw numbers to check), I can’t imagine a scenario where a hypothetical stock broker would be willing or even able to invest an individual’s money into every single corporation that offers stocks or bonds on the exchanges. Given that little hitch wouldn’t how your hypothetical investment perform depend on an individual stockbroker making good picks — instead of the overall performance of the entire market? That is unless you are trying to claim that every stock ever issued has given a good return over the time period covered. Overall pictures can look OK but individual investors still get the shaft more often than I’m comfortable with. Investing is gambling.
Have you also done research on how many public corporations have ceased to exist during the last 20 years — thereby rendering their stock worthless? Just asking. Too bad for those hypothetical Social Security investors, I guess.
Now, the people who recently switched over (or recently invested) expecting a quick return when they retire in 5-10 years got screwed, but then “quick bucks” are always risky.
Oh, I agree that investing in stocks(“quick bucks”) is “risky.” You will probably get a better return than working the slots in Vegas, but then again, maybe not. It depends on luck and acumen — which I’ll leave to smart folks like you. Myself, I want all my spare change in a savings account — especially money I’m counting on to support me after my working life is over — which includes payments to me through the Social Security Administration.
If they sit for a 30 year investment (as your SS money is) then it will work out and if it doesn’t, well lets just say the country is so screwed it doesn’t matter where your money is.
Well, maybe you believe that if YOUR “30 year investment” doesn’t work out then I am “screwed” also. Me, I think if you lose all YOUR money through investments that I’LL still be better off — because I don’t risk my money — I save. And I don’t want MY Social Security payments to fall into YOUR money hole, either.
Indeed, were I allowed to right now I would certainly put it there – by the time I retire I will have made MUCH more that way even if I have a few major losses as it goes forward. My mutual funds got hit hard, yet they will still have made quite a bit of money by the time I retire.
Really? Well, since it’s anecdote time, a person close to me had put a considerable amount money into 2 different mutual funds and her net worth has fallen below her original investment in recent months. I guess she wasn’t as smart as you, huh? Didn’t pick the right funds, maybe. But not to worry, right? If she sits tight she’ll get it all back through the stock market and you are absolutely sure of that, correct?
The Grackle will be singing a different tune after just a few years of the coming tide of inflation. If you are indeed in a savings account, not CDs, you are already losing money due to the rotten yield vs. inflation. But be safe, at all cost, be safe. You don’t know what you don’t know, I expect.
Ol’ bird: Lies are not differences of opinion, nor differences in forecasting future outcomes. Lies are intentional misrepresentations of the truth.
A good example is “the 40 million Americans (aka “of us”) who don’t have health insurance”. “American” in this context is a big lie by the definition I live by because it includes Latin Americans, some 10-12 million here illegally.
I see quotes but no attribution. Who are you quoting, Tom? As far as I can tell no one really knows how many illegal workers there are in the US because they live under the radar. The comprehensive immigration bill offered by McCain and Kyle awhile back that was shot down by Cornyn would have given us a pretty good figure but it was not to be. The flames of anti-immigration fervor were fanned very high and the bill, along with a reliable number for illegal workers in the US, was burned to a crisp.
The non-insured also include the millions of healthy 20-somethings who don’t buy it because they don’t need it, in a free choice that affords them more iPhones and dates and takeout food. Plus those millions who are between jobs but will return to coverage within the year. So we’re gonna convulse US healthcare, 17% of GDP, with enormous employment, for the maybe 15 million who don’t have it and can’t get it? That’s 5% of the population. Based on lies, or, if you prefer, gross oversimplifications, but intentionally done . Purpose: power grab; soft totalitarianism.
Who are you debating, Tom? I am not in favor of anything regarding healthcare that I’ve heard coming from the Democrats. I’m certainly not in favor of any “convulse” of the healthcare system. I don’t want to bankrupt the insurance companies — I just want them to compete and innovate with an eye to lessening the cost of their product and making their operations more efficient – like the standardized administrative transactions that were proposed by Bill Kristol years ago. Standardization of a few things would cost them very little in the way of money or effort — but nooooo — they want it ALL their way — even the relatively trivial aspects. But they NEVER lobby politicians, right?
As for “lies” about healthcare, I agree that Obama’s figures on the cost of his healthcare proposals are way off the mark — I trust the CBO, not Obama on that. But really, Obama is not the first President to paint a rosy picture about the figures on programs proposed by his administration — it’s pretty much a trait of ANY President — whether they be Right or Left. Liberal columnists used to enjoy hauling Bush over coals regularly for doing the same thing — even Reagan, back in the day.
But I really would like to know where you get your figures on the “20-somethings” that are so disturbing to you. I have the idea that the problem of the non-covered is larger than you think but I am willing to read any link to reliable sources which support your view.
I think too that the unemployed that return to work may not necessarily find an employer that offers health insurance as a benefit. Many employers do not offer health insurance as a benefit. Indeed, many offer no benefits at all. I hasten to add that I am not in favor of forcing any employer to offer benefits to employees.
I am also pretty sure that the cost of healthcare for those that ARE insured could be much improved and believe the insurance companies are the key for this. Insurance that is too costly even for those willing to buy insurance(the 40-somethings?) doesn’t do anyone any good — least of all the insurance companies themselves in the long run. Those lazybones need to be shaken out of the soft little beds they’ve been making for themselves for 30 years — that’s all. Competition is good for the soul, even for the reluctant.
I’ll add another thought — there needs to be a cap on malpractice judgements to get the malpractice insurance down. I don’t fault the insurance companies much on this — the culprits here are the lawyers that bring these frivolous suits. If it weren’t so lucrative for the legal beagles the sue-happy idiots would have a difficult time finding a lawyer willing to take their case. Venue-shopping and judge-shopping are practices that also need to be made to cease. The outlandish cost of malpractice insurance for doctors is a significant factor in the rising healthcare costs.
Finally, Tom, it seems to me that when the Democrats “power grab” you have a tendency to label it “totalitarianism.” Would you be so critical in your terminology if it were the Republicans who had the filibuster-proof Congress and a President in office? I wonder ….
It is all well and good for you to favor the GOP for reasons of national defense. But to shrug your shoulders about illegal immigration, for example, is to shrug off the law of the land. That shruggery (to coin a word that rhymes with thuggery) has far-reaching implications; if the law isn’t enforced here, why enforce it there?
Gee, tom, I must really be ticking you off for you to hurl the “thuggery” word. But not to worry — I won’t hold it against you — it was kind of clever, actually. Shades of the Music Man:
Trouble, oh we got trouble,
Right here in River City!
With a capital “T”
That rhymes with “P”
And that stands for Pool,
Besides, I know from your comments over the years that your passions run high and that’s not necessarily a bad thing in the long run. Just watch that blood pressure, buddy.
But back to reasoned discourse – I don’t “shrug” my shoulders over illegal immigration, Far from it. My hope is that something humane and sensible will be done sometime in the future — as has been tried unsuccessfully in the past. The legislation we are living under now, passed during the Reagan years, is satisfying to no one.
The Republicans need to get out from behind this wedge issue they’ve created before they alienate the Latino vote forever. It’s a monster, stitched together in their very own laboratory, that’s about to eat them. Take a look at the demographics sometime. The Latinos are the fastest growing voting bloc in the US but even the Cuban-Americans — which the GOP used to be able to count on — went for Obama. Read the short article at the link below to get an idea of the scope of the problem that the Republicans have with Latinos — all due in my opinion to the silly anti-immigration shenanigans committed by the GOP in the past few years. If you live by demagoguery you die by demagoguery.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0509/The_GOPs_Hispanic_problem.html
That has recently happened in the UK. The overworked, handicapped and p.c. constabulary decided some 130 types of crime by existing statute would not longer be investigated nor prosecuted.
I am happy to discuss, even debate, anything. But we must agree on common definitions such as “What is a lie?”.
Tom, I think we both know and agree on what’s a lie. The issue is whether one group lies much more than the other. I think they all lie from time to time — you think it’s only the Democrats.
I do not think grackle understand how the stock market works – long term diversified investment is generally as secure as any other investment.
Too many point to go through, however I will point out that yes, I’m going by the over all market index. Diversified portfolios have been around for many many decades now, few fall prey to the whole “A few companies go broke and I’m screwed” thing. Those that do decided that they could manage their money better and didn’t understand. A well diversified investment plan very very closely mirrors the over all index (mine does) so that is a valid measurement.
Stocks are *not* quick money and that is what got so many people in trouble. Day traders and the like along with a tremendous uptick in stock values in the late 90’s fooled a LARGE amount of people. Unless you are truly dedicated and know how to work it (and even then it is still something of a crap shoot) you are more than likely going to loose big. If you put your money in only a few companies then you also run a similar risk (but sadly you do not get the possibility of those huge monetary gains – the epitome of stupid investing).
As to links? If you *really* need me to link to market indexes for you to know how much everything has grown since Reagan’s years then you are lost anyway. If you *really* need me to link to what diversified investment is then, once more, you aren’t going to be able to understand the links. I’m not about to link you to my own personal investments.
“Really? Well, since it’s anecdote time, a person close to me had put a considerable amount money into 2 different mutual funds and her net worth has fallen below her original investment in recent months. I guess she wasn’t as smart as you, huh? Didn’t pick the right funds, maybe. But not to worry, right? If she sits tight she’ll get it all back through the stock market and you are absolutely sure of that, correct?”
Yes, I am absolutely sure that one of two things will happen in the long term assuming she did what every investment broker recommends – she will either gain her money back or the US will have fallen enough that it is a moot point.
If you take my own 401k for the last 5 years or so I’m down roughly 5%, if you take it from the last 10 or so I’m up by about 10% (OTOH my social security is up a whopping less than 1% – talk about some good investing there!!!). Again, later investors that came in on a high are not going to do well for a while, especially when it was a “bubble”.
Nor was I particularly smart in picking stocks – heck I didn’t directly pick any. I just checked a number of industries to put it into and what risk (half low risk/low income, 1/4 medium, 1/4 high and I picked highly diversified industries – that is I didn’t tie all my money in housing related fields). In fact when I read the suggestions on the paper work I was filling out it recommended something along those lines. I also chose two different providers for each of my 401k’s – indeed my choice of AIG was a particularly bad one at this point yet with the money spread out enough it didn’t hurt too much.
I do not know if she wasn’t as smart as me, is unrealistic in her expectations, or just didn’t bother to learn enough to know which boxes to check on her investment application. You can decide for yourself if she was stupid (apparently so since you seem to think that type of investment is), but I’ll be happy with mine and would jump on the ability to opt out of SS and put it into a 401k type program. As Tom says if things keep going the way they are your “safe” isn’t going to be so great.
The Grackle will be singing a different tune after just a few years of the coming tide of inflation. If you are indeed in a savings account, not CDs, you are already losing money due to the rotten yield vs. inflation. But be safe, at all cost, be safe. You don’t know what you don’t know, I expect.
About half of my cash is in CDs, with long term fixed rates. A couple are maturing soon and I’ll shop around for favorable rates for them. The other half resides in interest bearing savings accounts — just in case I need to skip to Mexico when the shooting starts. Here lately I’ve been thinking about buying gold. Although I’m still in the thinking and researching stage I have actually opened an account with the US Mint. I may never use it but it’s there. With all the currency being printed by the Fed inflation becomes a real danger to savers like myself. But even with inflation, I’ll bet on my cash(or maybe gold) against your risky stocks as a safer hedge against hard times.
Pingback:Aw, Come On, Neo. | Little Miss Attila
Grackle: FWIW, I am not in “risky” stocks, and have not been since 7/07. Of course, all equities have risk. Secured debt has suddenly become more risky with Obama’s flushing of the normal bankruptcy process, based in law, in the takeover of GM & Chrysler. Much of mine is in muni bonds with a pretty short ladder due to the coming inflation, but I have a strong position in silver and gold ETFs.
On your political views, I know many independents who feel as you, that most (some say “all”) politicians of whatever stripe are liars. A logical extrapolation of that view is, eventually, a rush to anarchy, since no one can be believed.
Gross venality aside, I think Liberals/Progressives/the Left tend toward a legalistic view, and Conservatives/ the Right tend toward a moral view. Law is based on debate; the winner is simply the better debater, saying whatever it takes. Morality is based on right vs. wrong.
Grackle: FWIW, I am not in “risky” stocks, and have not been since 7/07. Of course, all equities have risk. Secured debt has suddenly become more risky with Obama’s flushing of the normal bankruptcy process, based in law, in the takeover of GM & Chrysler. Much of mine is in muni bonds with a pretty short ladder due to the coming inflation, but I have a strong position in silver and gold ETFs.
I have enough socked away to keep me at my present level of living even if inflation trims it 50%, unless I get a catastrophic illness that my insurance decides not to cover. Then I’m screwed, but then just about anyone would be screwed — 401k or no 401k — diversified portfolio or no diversified portfolio. If you are Steve Jobs or Bill Gates you get the good stuff — the rest of us can only hope that the terrible beam of focused light puts off straying onto our little ant bed until we have grown very old.
Tom, I agree that Obama’s handling of the auto companies and the economy in general is not good. I think now that the banks needed to be propped up for the simple reason that no business can be conducted without them. But I think the auto companies should have been allowed to go through the normal, everyday, plain vanilla bankruptcy.
On your political views, I know many independents who feel as you, that most (some say “all”) politicians of whatever stripe are liars. A logical extrapolation of that view is, eventually, a rush to anarchy, since no one can be believed.
It’s not that everyone cannot be believed — it’s that every word a politician utters has to be taken with a grain of salt. The logical thing to do, since you broach the subject, is to judge politicians(or anyone else) on their actions and not so much their words. Politicians often use words as a smokescreen.
And these days they all are compelled to mouth the approved platitudes, whether speaking from the Right or the Left. Who knows what they privately believe. Maybe it’s always been that way. But what they must publicly do … well, now that’s where they have to truly reveal themselves for assessment by the citizens. Look at how they vote on bills, what bills they back, what issues they push and not only what they may say but also where they chose to say it.
Gross venality aside, I think Liberals/Progressives/the Left tend toward a legalistic view, and Conservatives/ the Right tend toward a moral view. Law is based on debate; the winner is simply the better debater, saying whatever it takes. Morality is based on right vs. wrong.
Sure, morality is based on right and wrong. But right and wrong is based on each person’s opinion on what is right and what is wrong. And these matters of right and wrong and lies can be complicated. These issues have been recognized, thought about and debated as far back as we have a written record. For me it’s not a simple black and white matter. To get to the point: I wish there were a way to quantify and prove it one way or another which side, Right or Left, lies more often. But there are problems of definition and categorization and other problems so that the question does not easily lend itself to a scientific resolution.
I read both sides. I have The Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Media Matters, Talking Point Memos, Matthew Yglesias and Politico bookmarked in a folder labeled “The Opposition” at this moment. These change from time to time, except The Daily Kos and Huffington Post are always bookmarked. I give them all a good reading every week or so. It is very difficult to do this because I feel the anger and frustration rise inside me as I read. But you know, I can tell you for certain that they think OUR side is always lying.
They think WE are not sincere and are hiding behind false principles for reasons of expediency. They believe WE exaggerate. They think the media favors the Right! Really — they do! They enjoy pointing it out when they think some person or politician on the Right lies or is in their eyes obviously in the wrong. And sometimes I think they are correct in their suspicions. And Tom, people can rationalize anything.
Anyway, from this exposure I think that a lot of what both sides label as “lies” are not lies per se. They are examples of hyperbole with some truth in them, they are mistakes in judgement or opinion that are later labeled as lies by the opposition, they are mistakes in interpretation, such as quoting out of context, etc. and are not lies in the classic sense. Sometimes a prominent person will simply say something that is stupid — but it is a rare person that doesn’t occasionally say something erroneous or stupid.
This is a complicated subject that I can only touch upon in a comment. To sum up: I think that no side lies any more than any other side and that how you perceive this issue usually depends on where you are coming from politically and philosophically.
That said, I will say that it seems that the Right is more tolerant of opposing opinion than the Left — which is a different issue than the lying issue. However, it also seems to me that there are exceptions even to this. For example, opinion on abortion and other hot button issues. Both sides are generally pretty intolerant on certain issues.
This toleration thing plays itself out in personal relationships and group interactions. I paint and I write poetry. There are groups in my locale that have to do with art and poetry and there are forums and such on the internet. But I know from bitter experience that if I attempt to participate and if they find out where I stand politically that I am immediately persona non grata. I will be labeled as a sexist, racist, fascist, Nazi, warmonger, a stupid, ignorant person, a bad poet, a bad painter, etc. There are NO exceptions allowed. You toe the Progressive line or else. The bias is inexorable. Ad hominem attacks are the rule, especially among poets.
Opinion on art and literature is a subjective thing in the first place so it is very easy to rationalize a vicious attack on the artist which in reality is motivated by politically based thoughts into being perceived by the attacker as merely an honest but vigorous critique.
We have had a productive dialogue, Grackle, albeit at Neo’s expense. I conclude we are in fact not that far apart view-wise. Maybe a matter of style more than substance. Gracias!