What I Saw at the Town Hall

August 12th, 2009 at 4:44 pm by Alex Knepper | 173 Comments |

Twenty minutes into my two-hour wait to get a seat at Senator Ben Cardin’s town hall event, I started keeping a “Nazi tally” by counting references I overheard to Adolf Hitler, Germany, or the Nazi Party. Besides the usual suspects, the Lyndon LaRouche brigade was out in full force handing out fliers and pamphlets likening Obama to a new Hitler (although the real problem is the Jews, if you ask them, so I’m not sure why they don’t welcome that). It was a common theme, and not just amongst the anti-Semites: “This is exactly how Nazi Germany began!” was a standard echo heard in line.

After a couple of arguments with Christian fundamentalists who accused me of not really being on their side because I’m a godless libertarian-type, the lines funneled in. “Welcome to an exercise in democracy, son,” a guard told me. Indeed. By way of contrast, while standing in line to question Cardin, I spotted an eleven-year-old boy being told by an older woman that “this isn’t what democracy is about.”

The town halls are exactly what you’re seeing on television. The crowds are overwhelmingly conservative — and I mean Glenn Beck conservative, not David Frum conservative. I’m talking angry, ready-to-roll conservative, not rational, let’s-discuss-philosophy conservative. I can’t think of any more appropriate word than ‘redneck’ to describe most of the crowd. Literally every person who took more than ten seconds to preface his question was shouted down by “Ask your question!” by an array of overfed hicks. They were also prone to shout “You work for us!” and “You just don’t get it!” at Cardin, as if Cardin should be expected to represent the ideals of the 9/12 Project or something.

A reporter for The Hill interviewed me afterward, asking me about the tone of the locals. I apologized for their behavior, of course, but hastened to assure her that she should not neglect the rational, capitalist case against “universal health care.” That same theme tied into the question I asked Senator Cardin. “My question cuts to the philosophical root of the issue,” I said. “Strip away the histrionics of the crowd, the specific provisions of the individual bills, and what you’re left with is a question of its philosophical core. So I want to know: in your political philosophy, how do you determine what a right is? And more importantly, how do you determine what a non-right is?” The crowd clapped, though not as enthusiastically as they did for those filled with anger. Cardin’s response was typical political mush about how he believes in corporate responsibility and good government. Okay, whatever. I tried to follow up, but the microphone — understandably — had been turned off.

After the town hall ended, an obese women in a plain white t-shirt attracted the attention of about a dozen reporters. Practically in hysterics, she explained that her liver was thrashed and that under Obama’s plan, she’d be killed off as an unproductive member of society. The woman was bawling her eyes out, the reporters taking in every tear. Nobody wanted to talk about the issues. They wanted their narrative. And they got it.

Cardin himself is useless; if there’s a bigger nonentity in the Senate, I can’t think of one. Every last one of his answers were pathetically canned, although someone managed to squeeze out support for investigating tort reform from him (don’t hold your breath). But nobody left the town hall knowing anything more than they did when they arrived. On the other hand, though, nobody actually showed up to learn anything about the bill. I’m not sure who’s more responsible for the pointlessness of the event: the audience or Ben Cardin.

All in all, I’d have to say that I learned something today: what we need is not health care reform. What we really need is education reform.

Image courtesy of Gracie Films and 20th Century Fox Television.

173 responses so far

1 ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 5:04 pm

“All in all, I’d have to say that I learned something today: what we need is not health care reform. What we really need is education reform.”

…….No Mr Knepper what we need is both healthcare reform and a Republican leadership that is willing to take some responsibility for this…..I do applaud your honesty in facing up to what these shoutfests really are but instead of attacking old Ben Cardin who isn’t the greatest senator in the world but a perfectly respectable one and a very decent man into the bargain you should be asking where the Republican leadership is when all these crazies are running amok…….Of course, it all fits right in with the President’s rope-a-dope strategy….Every night our tv screens are packed with these idiots screaming and holding up the Hitler pics while Obama in all his clips is his usual friendly, likeable, reasonable and coherent self ……..I’ve just finished reading a long piece at the American Conservative that is grudgingly coming round to the idea that yes, perhaps, something does need to be done……the sooner Republicans wake up to this reality the better for the party and for America.
2 liv&win // Aug 12, 2009 at 5:09 pm

I have opined here before that education reform should be a conservative’s first, second and third priority. On the first order, it should be totally unacceptable that inner-city kids have to put up with their failed education system. On the second order, it should be totally unacceptable that anything take precedence over giving kids a first rate education (think union rules). And on the third order, we have created a generation that can not think for themselves and analyze complicated issues. They are not taught logic which is fundamental to identifying rehetoric and fallacy on one hand and cause and effect on the other.
3 Chekote // Aug 12, 2009 at 5:13 pm

Otto

Perhaps you have forgotten the countless Hitler=Bush posters that the Left carried for eight years. I didn’t like it when the Left did it and don’t like it now. The idea that ANYTHING in this country is comparable to Nazi Germany is plain nuts.
4 barker13 // Aug 12, 2009 at 5:17 pm

Interesting timing…

While doing some googling of my own congressman I came across the following:

http://wwww.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/10/764595/-Just-Back-from-John-Halls-%28NY-19%29-Health-Care-Forum

Alex… (*GRIN*)… don’t take this the wrong way, but you come across as kinda… umm… “Kos Lite.”

Anyway, I’ll chat with you later. I don’t have time to respond to your latest contribution right this second.

BILL
5 balconesfault // Aug 12, 2009 at 5:21 pm

“Perhaps you have forgotten the countless Hitler=Bush posters that the Left carried for eight years.”
And have you forgotten the way the mainstream media talked about how Bush’s agenda was under threat because of the intensity of these protestors … and how Republican Congressmen needed to take that under consideration when casting their votes because those protestors represented the will of the people?

Yeah, I’ve forgotten that too. Almost like it never happened.
6 ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 5:33 pm

Chekote // Aug 12, 2009 at 5:13 pm
“Perhaps you have forgotten the countless Hitler=Bush posters that the Left carried for eight years.”

…..Not at all…….They were equally stupid….but since none of them ever got into any of Bush’s meetings which were rigidly controlled, their visibility was minimal and there were in any case far fewer of them…..Hence my conclusion that Obama is quite happy to see your fellow believers making utter fools of themselves in such a public manner…..and yes any comparison with Hitler’s Germany during either the Bush or Obama presidencies is nuts.
7 ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 5:35 pm

barker13 // Aug 12, 2009 at 5:17 pm
“Anyway, I’ll chat with you later. I don’t have time to respond to your latest contribution right this second.”

…….be thankful for small mercies Alex
8 steelyblades // Aug 12, 2009 at 6:22 pm

I suspect the tenor of these events varies quite a bit by region. I haven’t attended a town hall in my area yet, but hope to soon. The ones I watched yesterday (Specter, McCaskill) actually seemed good–there were high emotions, but there was also a real exchange of ideas and while there were definitely some outbursts these events were by no means dominated by shouting matches. One thing I did notice was a *lot* of seniors in attendance. Understandable, as any discussion of cutting money out of Medicare raises the antennae of seniors. (As well it should.)

To me the most interesting thing about this debate is that it has really taken so many of our various national insecurities and disagreements and tossed them into a blender. Think about all the facets of disagreement we’re seeing in the health care debate:

1. Fiscal – a lot of people are freaked out about the price tag. How can we find another $1.2 trillion over the next ten years?

2. Generational – As noted above, I was struck by the number of silver-haired folks who were there, and who were really fired up. They are understandably scared about losing their Medicare, Medicaid, etc., or rationing their care, or facing Sarah Palin’s ridiculous “death panels.” So there is certainly a generational aspect to this discussion.

3. Racial – No surprise, this is most prominently displayed in the southern states. Lots of irrational hatred for immigrants, and some pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache, etc. Ugly stuff.

4. Religious – This one is really fascinating, as the issue of health care reform clearly has people of faith divided. Some folks are really worried that health care reform will allow tax dollars to fund abortion, while others are on the opposite side of the issue as they feel that health care for all citizens is the moral obligation of a civilized society.

I can see now why health care reform is so difficult to achieve. Yet I am still hopeful that it can happen this time. We’ll see.
9 Chekote // Aug 12, 2009 at 6:32 pm

They were equally stupid….but since none of them ever got into any of Bush’s meetings which were rigidly controlled, their visibility was minimal and there were in any case far fewer of them…..

I know what you mean. Obama’s townhall meeting was completely open and not staged. Ha! All POTUSES stage these meetings. I wish they would all do away with the photo ops and actually govern once in office. As far as “fewer of them”, several thousands were outside Madison Square Garden during the GOP convention with their Hitler signs. I think it is time for leaders of both parties to denounce their respective loonies and tell them to stop the Hitler/Nazi analogies.
10 AlexK // Aug 12, 2009 at 6:33 pm

“…….No Mr Knepper what we need is both healthcare reform and a Republican leadership that is willing to take some responsibility for this…..I do applaud your honesty in facing up to what these shoutfests really are but instead of attacking old Ben Cardin who isn’t the greatest senator in the world but a perfectly respectable one and a very decent man into the bargain you should be asking where the Republican leadership is when all these crazies are running amok”

Don’t be silly. Of course Cardin is a decent man. It doesn’t mean that he’s effective. You don’t hire an electrician based upon whether he’s a “decent man,” and you shouldn’t use that criterion for a senator, either.

Anyway, don’t harp on the GOP, here; they have no power but to fight back with words. The left has the power. They need to exercise it responsibly — or lose it.

“Perhaps you have forgotten the countless Hitler=Bush posters that the Left carried for eight years. I didn’t like it when the Left did it and don’t like it now. The idea that ANYTHING in this country is comparable to Nazi Germany is plain nuts.”

Also pathetic, also wrong. Can’t justify a wrong with a wrong. People just don’t understand history.

“Alex… (*GRIN*)… don’t take this the wrong way, but you come across as kinda… umm… “Kos Lite.” Anyway, I’ll chat with you later. I don’t have time to respond to your latest contribution right this second.”

Thanks for the evaluation of a piece you didn’t read.

“I suspect the tenor of these events varies quite a bit by region. I haven’t attended a town hall in my area yet, but hope to soon. The ones I watched yesterday (Specter, McCaskill) actually seemed good–there were high emotions, but there was also a real exchange of ideas”

There was no such exchange in today’s town hall. It was just emotional ranting versus political mush.
11 dacookson // Aug 12, 2009 at 6:38 pm

I hope you got clearance for that picture…
12 Chekote // Aug 12, 2009 at 6:45 pm

Alex

One of the reasons this blog and Frum are not getting more traction among conservative circles is because of the perception that you are a bunch of elitists. You don’t help the cause by using terms like “overfed hicks”. Also, referring to the weight of the protesters adds little to your article and makes you come across as a snob. You can make your points without feeding into the sterotype that haunts this blog. Just a bit of advice.
13 ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 6:50 pm

AlexK // Aug 12, 2009 at 6:33 pm
“Don’t be silly. Of course Cardin is a decent man. It doesn’t mean that he’s effective”

…….Who says he’s ineffective….I don’t think he’s the greatest statesman ever seen in the US senate but would you say that description fits Vitter or Ensign or DeMint or Inhofe……..and it may be quaint but….yes…… I actually value a bit of decency in a senator……perhaps you prefer total Shiites whether they are effective or not
14 AlexK // Aug 12, 2009 at 6:53 pm

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I personally know that I am an elitist: I do not identify with “the common man,” I do not glorify him, and I do not think that “he knows best” at the end of the day. We’re a government of the people, yes, but we’re also supposed to send our best and brightest to Congress. What’s my attitude, then? Think HL Mencken. Love him.

And they were overfed hicks. It’s not my fault that the stereotypes are true. Everyone who was yelling at Cardin was a middle-aged, overweight white man. Although Nancy Pelosi was wrong: they weren’t very well-dressed. It’s not that an overfed hick can’t be right about something — and I think that they’re far more right than wrong when it comes to this issue — but that they tend not to contribute very rationally to debate.
15 ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 6:55 pm

Chekote // Aug 12, 2009 at 6:32 pm
“I know what you mean. Obama’s townhall meeting was completely open and not staged.Ha! ”

……..Actually if you care to check….. the tickets for Obama’s NH event were available to anyone over the internet adn he deliberately sought out contrarian questions….I watched the whole thing on a replay…..the fact is Obama can think on his feet and handle this stuff….Bush couldn’t so that’s why it all had to be so controlled……Chek you obviously have the capacity to get out of the groove as your realism over Palin and religious fundamentalism shows…….so why the blinders over this
16 AlexK // Aug 12, 2009 at 6:56 pm

“…….Who says he’s ineffective….I don’t think he’s the greatest statesman ever seen in the US senate but would you say that description fits Vitter or Ensign or DeMint or Inhofe……..and it may be quaint but….yes…… I actually value a bit of decency in a senator……perhaps you prefer total Shiites whether they are effective or not”

Why do people think it’s a great retort to point out that other people have the same attributes as those being criticized?

I’m in politics because I care about an agenda, not because I want our elected officials to be Virtuous. I’d rather send in mindless robots if they’ll vote a classically liberal line. It’s not about Ben Cardin, The Man, but the role he’s playing as Ben Cardin, The Senator.

Then again, all things considered, I’d rather him be ineffective. He is a Democrat, after all.
17 ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:00 pm

Chekote // Aug 12, 2009 at 6:45 pm
“One of the reasons this blog and Frum are not getting more traction among conservative circles is because of the perception that you are a bunch of elitists.”

……More like an exclusive club you mean…..they let people like me in ….but would I want to be in a club of which I was a member……Chek you’re starting to sound as pompous as irreign
18 ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:02 pm

AlexK // Aug 12, 2009 at 6:56 pm
“Why do people think it’s a great retort to point out that other people have the same attributes as those being criticized?’

…….you think Vitter and Ensign have the same moral character as Cardin then?

……Actually you’re not making a lot of sense
19 Spartacus // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:03 pm

“Strip away the histrionics of the crowd, the specific provisions of the individual bills, and what you’re left with is a question of its philosophical core.”

Finally, someone gets to the heart of the matter. For the vast majority of those who have publicly opposed healthcare reform, it is not at all about the specific provisions of the indivdual bills. It is simply a philosophical question. Consequently, it does not matter one iota if the proposed healthcare reforms will (1) reduce the number of uninsured, (2) reduce the cost of coverage for those already insured, and (3) obtain better results for the money we do spend. All that matters to those opposed to reform is that it requires government intervention and the use of government funds.

I’ve argued on this blog for months now that the Right simply has different values than those who favor reform. Those of us who advocate reform favor the 3 goals I described above. Those on the Right who oppose reform favor the complete absence of government intervention, no expenditure of government funds and a reliance on unregulated free markets to solve domestic policy concerns.

Why won’t those who are opposed to reform simply admit they value the benefits of unregulated free markets over the benefits of reform?
20 Chekote // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:05 pm

the tickets for Obama’s NH event were available to anyone over the internet adn he deliberately sought out contrarian questions….

If you believe that there was no pre-screening, I have a bridge to sell you. Even Obama realized that it was stacked and started soliciting contrarian questions and still didn’t get any. You are too partisan.

the fact is Obama can think on his feet and handle this stuff

I know what you mean. That UPS/Postal Office analogy was simply brilliant in terms of what he was trying to accomplish. /sarcasm
21 AlexK // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:05 pm

“…….you think Vitter and Ensign have the same moral character as Cardin then?”

Ah, I misunderstood you, then.

I don’t think that cheating your wife makes you evil. It just means that you’re fallible, as we all are. It doesn’t make it right, and they were (rightly) repudiated.

I’m not getting your point, though.
22 AlexK // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:07 pm

“Why won’t those who are opposed to reform simply admit they value the benefits of unregulated free markets over the benefits of reform?”

Oh, I do. I’m a proud laissez-faire capitalist. The reporter from the Hill also asked me how I would insure the uninsured. I told them that their premise was faulty; that I don’t think that it’s anyone’s responsibility to provide health care for anyone else, that health care is not a right, and that it’s not the government’s job to shield people from the inevitable pitfalls of life. Some people naturally have it more difficult than others. The quest for utopia is fruitless.
23 Chekote // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:08 pm

Chek you’re starting to sound as pompous as irreign

Where is ireign? Looking up separation of church and state, I am sure. I was just making a suggestion that Alex should refrain from using terms like “hicks” in light of the constant attack on Frum that he and the contributors here are elitists. Why feed into the line of attack?!
24 Spartacus // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:09 pm

Alex: “I can’t speak for anyone else, but I personally know that I am an elitist: I do not identify with “the common man,” I do not glorify him, and I do not think that “he knows best” at the end of the day. We’re a government of the people, yes, but we’re also supposed to send our best and brightest to Congress.”

Wow!!! I’m impressed. Maybe there is a chance that conservatives/GOPers can make a comeback. It people want to be entrusted with governing it helps that they take it seriously and intend to do it better than most.
25 barker13 // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:10 pm

Re: AlexK // Aug 12, 2009 at 6:33 pm (#13)

“Thanks for the evaluation of a piece you didn’t read.”

Pay attention, son. (*TOLERANT SMILE*) I wrote that I didn’t have time to respond – not that I hadn’t had time to read your piece.

(Ahh… impetuous youth…) (*CHUCKLE*)

Actually… I still don’t have time to respond point by point; I just got back from racquetball and I need to shower and eat dinner. But don’t worry… I’ll get around to you tonight or tomorrow.

BILL
26 AlexK // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:12 pm

“I was just making a suggestion that Alex should refrain from using terms like “hicks” in light of the constant attack on Frum that he and the contributors here are elitists. Why feed into the line of attack?!”

It’s a fair enough criticism from a PR standpoint, perhaps.
27 ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:12 pm

AlexK // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:05 pm
“I don’t think that cheating your wife makes you evil. It just means that you’re fallible”

…….Neither do I although Vitter is a bit beyond that apparently…….my point is that not everyone in the senate is Clay, Johnson, Albright, Kennedy or Vandenburg…….there are a lot of average people…it doesn’t mean they’re ineffective although they may be……raising the decency quotient among the talented and the less so is basically a good thing in of itself particularly in a collegial body like the senate……in any case one often doesn’t discover who is effective and who is not until they get there….case in point Harry Truman the senator from Pendergast…..and he was a very decent guy to boot.
28 Churl // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:14 pm

Alex, dear boy, you need to learn the difference between a dorm room bull session and furor over a law that will fundamentally and irrevocably change the relationship between American citizens and their government – and not to the good of the citizens. The “let’s-discuss-philosophy” conservatives are a joke in today’s political environment; they bring talking points to a gunfight. Show me a legislator who will be swayed by philosophical argument on this subject; I will wait patiently. The days of the gentry sitting in the local inn debating the Federalist Papers are sadly long behind us. Legislators react to one thing: fear of being voted out of office and the loss of the usufructs and perquisites thereunto appurtaining.
The town meeting folks you saw may not meet campus standards of youth, attractiveness, and deportment, but they have one vote apiece and are likely to cast it in a manner congenial to conservatism.
29 AlexK // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:15 pm

“…….Neither do I although Vitter is a bit beyond that apparently…….my point is that not everyone in the senate is Clay, Johnson, Albright, Kennedy or Vandenburg…….there are a lot of average people…it doesn’t mean they’re ineffective although they may be……raising the decency quotient among the talented and the less so is basically a good thing in of itself particularly in a collegial body like the senate……in any case one often doesn’t discover who is effective and who is not until they get there….case in point Harry Truman the senator from Pendergast…..and he was a very decent guy to boot.”

If you can’t be Johnson, can you at least try to be Leahy?
30 ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:17 pm

Chekote // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:05 pm

the tickets for Obama’s NH event were available to anyone over the internet adn he deliberately sought out contrarian questions….

If you believe that there was no pre-screening, I have a bridge to sell you. Even Obama realized that it was stacked and started soliciting contrarian questions and still didn’t get any.

……Are you saying the audience was prescreened or the questions…..and he did get some contrarian questions….

” know what you mean. That UPS/Postal Office analogy was simply brilliant in terms of what he was trying to accomplish. /sarcasm”

……..unfortunately you can’t bring yourself to admit he’s pretty brilliant on his feet…..whereas Bush was useless…….it was painful to watch….it has nothing to do with partisanship just objective assessment of performance
31 AlexK // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:18 pm

“Alex, dear boy, you need to learn the difference between a dorm room bull session and furor over a law that will fundamentally and irrevocably change the relationship between American citizens and their government – and not to the good of the citizens. The “let’s-discuss-philosophy” conservatives are a joke in today’s political environment; they bring talking points to a gunfight. Show me a legislator who will be swayed by philosophical argument on this subject; I will wait patiently. The days of the gentry sitting in the local inn debating the Federalist Papers are sadly long behind us. Legislators react to one thing: fear of being voted out of office and the loss of the usufructs and perquisites thereunto appurtaining. The town meeting folks you saw may not meet campus standards of youth, attractiveness, and deportment, but they have one vote apiece and are likely to cast it in a manner congenial to conservatism.”

Interesting, fair enough argument at its core — one that I fundamentally agree with: results matter most, the ends can potentially justify the means — but I think in practice these angry protesters just make us look frivolous. Lisa Murkowski put it well: the bills are bad enough as they are — we don’t need to start making things up about them, too.
32 Spartacus // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:18 pm

“I told them that their premise was faulty; that I don’t think that it’s anyone’s responsibility to provide health care for anyone else, that health care is not a right, and that it’s not the government’s job to shield people from the inevitable pitfalls of life.”

Your honesty is refreshing, but it appears that your fellow conservatives think it is a political loser. Instead of candidly arguing the government should not pursue lower-cost universal coverage, they argue that lower-cost universal coverage can be achieved purely through the workings of an unregulated free market. This is clearly false and those who argue it may gain politically in the short run, but the country is worse off in the long-run because the will to implement even the modest reforms Frum wrote about (“What Happens If We Win the Healthcare Fight?”) is weakened.
33 AlexK // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:20 pm

“……..unfortunately you can’t bring yourself to admit he’s pretty brilliant on his feet”

Are you kidding? Brilliant? Competent, perhaps, but brilliant? He’s alright.

He could have gotten this plan through by repudiating Pelosi and Reid early, insisting that they work with Heath Shuler and the moderate Republicans like Kirk and Castle, etc., but he so very badly wants this his way.
34 ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:20 pm

Chekote // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:08 pm

Chek you’re starting to sound as pompous as irreign

“Where is ireign? Looking up separation of church and state, I am sure”

………or whether Sullivan is a conservative with a big or small C
35 AlexK // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:24 pm

“Your honesty is refreshing, but it appears that your fellow conservatives think it is a political loser. Instead of candidly arguing the government should not pursue lower-cost universal coverage, they argue that lower-cost universal coverage can be achieved purely through the workings of an unregulated free market. This is clearly false and those who argue it may gain politically in the short run, but the country is worse off in the long-run because the will to implement even the modest reforms Frum wrote about (”What Happens If We Win the Healthcare Fight?”) is weakened.”

The market cannot and should not make such things universal; there’s little that’s universal in the market. However, it’s not “universal” coverage that matters: it’s the standard of living. The poor today have princely health care compared to the rich 200 years ago. In another 20 years, I suspect we’ll see similar advancements, as long as we don’t slay the goose that lays the golden eggs. We take a lot for granted that we shouldn’t.

I do believe that measures such as tort reform are a great place for conservatives in Congress to start as a counter-program. That’s popular, too.

Starting to privatize Medicare would also be lovely. But that’s also a political loser.
36 ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:25 pm

AlexK // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:15 pm
” If you can’t be Johnson, can you at least try to be Leahy?”

……Unfortunately they don’t all possess your brilliance….the US legislature is by definition very mediocre…..we really have one of the dimmest political ruling classes in the west ….many of the senators come from the house as Cardin did
37 ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:27 pm

AlexK // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:24 pm
” I do believe that measures such as tort reform are a great place for conservatives in Congress to start as a counter-program. That’s popular, too”

……which proves that you’re perhaps not so brilliant….malpractice insurance and settlement are less than 1% of annual expenditures.
38 MacGruber // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:29 pm

Isn’t the name of your website somewhat of an oxymoron considering you’re brand of bullshit isn’t “new” and you’re in no way the “majority”? Just wondering…
39 ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:34 pm

AlexK // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:20 pm

“……..unfortunately you can’t bring yourself to admit he’s pretty brilliant on his feet”

Are you kidding? Brilliant? Competent, perhaps, but brilliant? He’s alright.

He could have gotten this plan through by repudiating Pelosi and Reid early, insisting that they work with Heath Shuler and the moderate Republicans like Kirk and Castle, etc., but he so very badly wants this his way.

………Well he is president against incredibly long odds including out maneuvering the Clintons……McCain was stealing candy from a baby by comparison……As for the comments about repudiating Pelosi etc you’re definitely not as clever as you think you are if you think “working with Republicans” was the route forward……in fact I start to question your realism ……..and I’m sure he does want it his way and he’ll get it to all intents and purposes…..and your fat hicks are assisting in the process.
40 Spartacus // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:38 pm

“The poor today have princely health care compared to the rich 200 years ago. ”

They do indeed, but at what cost? No one is complaining about the quality of care once a person actually gets care. Instead, the complaint is about the cost of care and what those costs are doing to private sector companies as well as the federal government. In the U.S., those costs are devastating both business and government. In other Western countries where governments have intervened more heavily, those costs are not having a devastating effect, and those countries are getting the same outcomes as we get here.

If the ultimate goal is to have purely unregulated markets, then healthcare reform should do nothing more than tinker around the edges, which is exactly what tort reform is. On the other hand, if the goal is to facilitate a healthy, well-educated and highly productive populace without going broke, then healthcare reform should implement the kinds of measures that have actually proved to be successful, irrespective of which philosophies such measures might offend.
41 ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:40 pm

Churl // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:14 pm
“The town meeting folks you saw may not meet campus standards of youth, attractiveness, and deportment, but they have one vote apiece and are likely to cast it in a manner congenial to conservatism”

……They are performing their walk on role of useful idiots in the president’s strategy of positioning opponents of reform as generally repellant and perhaps dangerous crazies
42 steelyblades // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:41 pm

Well said Spartacus.
43 barker13 // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:42 pm

Ahh… Alex my young friend with the tousled hair…

(*GRIN*)

OK. First your post –

“Twenty minutes into my two-hour wait to get a seat at Senator Ben Cardin’s town hall event, I started keeping a “Nazi tally”…”

Alex. Son. This is just the BEGINNING of your post – your first sentence – not even your complete first sentence!

(*SNORT*)

Nah… like nothing your EVER read on a far Left site. (*SMIRK*)

Before you reach the end of your OPENING sentence you’ve already brought Adolf Hitler and the Nazis on stage.

Sentence number two… Lyndon LaRouche. Now what Lyndon LaRouche has to do with conservatism or even Republican I’m still trying to figure out… but already the spin of your post is that everything Obama and the DNC are saying about the town hall meeting is pretty close to your experience.

SECOND paragraph… first sentence… “After a couple of arguments with Christian fundamentalists who accused me of not really being on their side because I’m a godless libertarian-type..”

A slam against Christian “fundamentalists.” (*SHRUG*)

BTW, Alex… somehow I think you’re guilty of a bit of literary license because although I don’t get into arguments with Christian fundamentalists all that often (*SNORT*) I’ve never known one of their big insults to be, “you Godless libertarian type.”

Continuing… ““Welcome to an exercise in democracy, son,” a guard told me.”

A “guard…???” Do you mean… a police officer…? (Town Hall, right…? Usually they don’t have “guards.” And yes… usually the do have a officer at a public meeting where politicians – federal politicians particularly – are addressing town meetings.)

“The crowds are overwhelmingly conservative — and I mean Glenn Beck conservative, not David Frum conservative.”

Well, yeah… I’d hope so!

“I’m talking angry, ready-to-roll conservative, not rational, let’s-discuss-philosophy conservative.”

So… one can’t be both angry and rational at the same time…??? Alex… are you a big Star Trek fan by any chance…???

(*CHUCKLE*)

“I spotted an eleven-year-old boy being told by an older woman that “this isn’t what democracy is about.””

Son. That woman is wrong. This is exactly what our Republican form of government… our democracy… is all about. If average Americans had been this worked up throughout our entire history perhaps we wouldn’t have gotten to a point where our elected officials feel free to pass 1,000+ page bills they freely admit they haven’t read.

“I can’t think of any more appropriate word than ‘redneck’ to describe most of the crowd. Literally every person who took more than ten seconds to preface his question was shouted down by “Ask your question!” by an array of overfed hicks.”

Wow.

Jeez…

I don’t even need to go on, do I?

Anyway… access the link I provided. Either you’ll see a bit of yourself or you won’t.

(*SHRUG*)

BILL
44 ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:44 pm

AlexK // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:24 pm
” “The poor today have princely health care compared to the rich 200 years ago. ”

…….There you go the Chateau bottled Republican for you….let them eat cake…..I’m a bit of an elitist myself but try to resist it more foolish aspects
45 AlexK // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:49 pm

“BTW, Alex… somehow I think you’re guilty of a bit of literary license because although I don’t get into arguments with Christian fundamentalists all that often (*SNORT*) I’ve never known one of their big insults to be, “you Godless libertarian type.”

Um. Well, I know what happened, and I reported it accurately, so, um…yeah.

“…….There you go the Chateau bottled Republican for you….let them eat cake…..I’m a bit of an elitist myself but try to resist it more foolish aspects”

You’re like a petulant child at Christmas, ungrateful for the blessings of capitalism. The poor have princely health care compared to the previous state of things, but we can never be grateful for the bounty of what we have, noooo, we always have to complain about what we lack: utopia.
46 Spartacus // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:50 pm

Thanks, Steelyblades.
47 barker13 // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:57 pm

Re: Chekote // Aug 12, 2009 at 6:45 pm (#12) –

“You can make your points without feeding into the sterotype that haunts this blog. Just a bit of advice.”

(*NOD*)

(Not that I think the kid will take your advice… but it IS good advice.) (*SHRUG*)

Re: AlexK // Aug 12, 2009 at 6:53 pm (#14) –

“I personally know that I am an elitist…”

Alex. The deal is though… you’ve gotta prove you’re the real deal. A self-described “elitist” without the intellectual firepower to back it up is called… a pretender… a wannabe.

You’re young. We have another young guy who posts here – he goes by the handle Brutus. I’ve read plenty of your stuff… I’ve read plenty of his… he’d wipe the floor with you.

Me…??? I’m an obnoxious overbearing condecending… er… so and so. But I regularly back it up. (*WINK*)

As a CONTRIBUTOR as opposed to just one of us peons… (*SMILE*)… you might wanna tone it down a bit.

* Oops! Gotta run! Dinner! (Then O’Reilly!)

BILL
48 ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:59 pm

AlexK // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:49 pm
“You’re like a petulant child at Christmas, ungrateful for the blessings of capitalism.’

……..Since I’ve been a practicing capitalist all my working life that might have something to do with my more nuanced outlook……anyway I wait with baited breath for more reality and wisdom from your tapping fingers
49 RLHotchkiss // Aug 12, 2009 at 8:11 pm

At these meetings you are seeing the end of the Republican party. As a liberal you would think that this would fill me with some small joy. Far from it.

In times of stress people want stability. Lyndon Johnson responded with promise of economic stability through the Great Society. Nixon responded with Law and Order.

The Hippies led the Democratic party into a generation in the wilderness. But these people disrupting the meetings will kill the Republican party.

The Republican party can’t respond with an economic safety net. And the can’t afford to put more people into prison.

As ugly as these meetings have been, I have seen much more uglier stuff on the net. While nothing in the Democratic proposals has talked about rationing care for the elderly, some on the net have not been so kind. They see these disruptive people in crowds who have had opportunities beyond the wildest dreams of this generation as regards to salaries and pensions and people are beginning to wonder just why the government is paying for cataract surgery for an elderly person who has six months to live when they can’t afford health insurance.

This won’t lead to an outpouring for health care reform. But I promise you the first Youtube video of a police officer beating one of these screamers to a bloody pulp will be the most viewed video on the site ever.

Young clean cut men will appear and they will keep order. Screaming old people will be beaten mercilessly, ditto the mentally ill, ditto the mentally ill, ditto anyone who deviates or causes a disruption. When I first saw Palin I thought of Mussolini, and not in an insulting way. Mussolini was an antithetic man’s man, a male Palin who reveled in winter activities.

But, I never saw the chaos these meeting present coming. This chaos is an open invitation to fascism and Palin is the person to bring it. If she can just exit the mop and join the call for order, we may be seeing a lot more of her.
50 Chekote // Aug 12, 2009 at 8:13 pm

Otto

Most of the people who are very upset about this bill are seniors. Do you honestly think that making tickets available through the Internet, who do you think favors? Seniors? Young people?
51 Chekote // Aug 12, 2009 at 8:24 pm

When I first saw Palin I thought of Mussolini, and not in an insulting way.

And when I first red your post, I thought of the Pol Pot and not in a insulting way.

But, I never saw the chaos these meeting present coming.

I don’t know why not? The Tea Parties were a clue. Santelli’s rant should have been a clue. People are upset with a government that is completely out of control. A government that just keeps on spending, spending, spending. It is not sustainable. Plus, no grown ups are stepping up from either party to get a hold of the situation. I personally have sent e-mails, made countless calls. Our representatives just ignore us. That is why people are showing up in person. They are frustrated. They feel ignored and need to vent.
BTW, I have been to many townhall meetings. They are dominated by seniors. From what I see on TV, the crowd looks pretty typical. Yes, you always have the nutty element passing around petitions to abolish the Fed and telling you that you don’t need to pay taxes. That’s just Americana.
52 raygun // Aug 12, 2009 at 8:50 pm

barker13 writes (*smirk*)

“Alex. The deal is though… you’ve gotta prove you’re the real deal. A self-described “elitist” without the intellectual firepower to back it up is called… a pretender… a wannabe.”

From a guy who writes like a 16 year-old girl texting to her giggling friends (*snap tee-hee*)
53 isaac21 // Aug 12, 2009 at 9:01 pm

Believe me, I would love it if your average Joe would step to the microphone at these townhall events and start preaching Hayek or Friedman and the crowd would hoot and holler the same way they would if they were at a taping of Glenn Beck. But this is politics – not a University of Chicago seminar. It’s one thing to demand a higher level of philosophical coherence from our legislators when questioned at a private event, but at an open event bound to rouse passions? I think not.

Instead of filing breathtakingly condescending dispatches maligning the “average Joe” most likely already to support generally conservative or libertarian-sympathetic reform, maybe you should focus your intellectual energies on a policy analysis -or anything else -that leverages your talents and might actually help conservatives win votes in the future.
54 barker13 // Aug 12, 2009 at 9:39 pm

Re: Spartacus // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:03 pm (#19) –

“I’ve argued on this blog for months now that the Right simply has different values than those who favor reform.”

Spart. Let me start off by apologizing. A few days ago on one of the threads you posted a rather long piece which I believe dealt in large part with some of my specific proposals on healthcare reform.

(I seem to recall something about you being shocked – in a good way – as you went over my views.)

Anyway… I meant to read it fully and reply, but you know how it is… I got caught up on other arguments on other threads and for the life of me I can’t find what it is you wrote that I had planned to reply to.

Do you know what I’m referring to…???

In any case, perhaps you and I can rehash some specifics between us here on this thread.

BILL
55 barker13 // Aug 12, 2009 at 9:46 pm

Re: Chekote // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:05 pm (#20) -

Yeah. How’bout that little girl who asked the planted question – her mom is a big Obama fundraiser. Even the Boston Frigg’n Globe could resist taking Obama to task.

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/malden/2009/08/a_girl_from_malden_asked.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed2

BILL
56 Spartacus // Aug 12, 2009 at 9:55 pm

Barker, no apology necessary. I completely understand.

You had asked me why I thought Obama hadn’t mentioned the positive aspects of the French, Dutch and Singaporean systems and I wrote the following:

I suspect he doesn’t do this because of the extreme prejudice (not racial, but cultural prejudice) that so many Americans have against foreign societies – particularly of Europe, as well as the demagoguery that many on the Right would immediately engage in. If a U.S. Congressman were willing to take the time to push for a change in the name of “French Fries” merely because France, a long-time ally who happened to be right, refused to support our misadventure in Iraq, what chance is there of getting a fair hearing when stating that there are elements of the French system that are worth evaluating and considering for implementation here?

Just look at these threads. You and I are on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, but based on your posts above and on your post on a different thread today, I suspect we could probably come to some kind of compromise that results in real reform if we were the decision-makers. But look how long it’s taken for us to look past each other’s ideology, admit neither of us has a monopoly on all the facts and become willing to judge proposals on their merits. Now, compare that to Sinz, who after reading two of JHH112’s, still won’t concede that the French system is not a single-payer system despite the fact that JHH lived there and sounds to have way more knowledge about the French system than Sinz.

Now, if Sinz, who owns a computer, has very good reading and writing skills, has more familiarity with the U.S. healthcare system than most Americans, possesses a well-above average knowledge of history and still ends up being DEAD WRONG and unwilling to concede his error about an indisputable fact, what hope would Obama have in trying to present a comparative evaluation to your average American? I mean when an under-employed plumber making $40k/year and believes he’s going to pay more taxes under Obama’s tax cut plan can become the officially appointed figurehead of the presidential candidate of a major political party, then I’m not very optimistic about this country’s ability to take the time to understand the facts and evaluate the issues on the merits. And, it’s not just conservatives or GOPers who don’t inspire my confidence; I think this transcends politics. It just so happens that on the issue of healthcare, it is the Right whose opposition seems less fact-based and more ideological.

Incidentally, those of us who point out some of the comparative advantages in these other healthcare systems are not arguing that the U.S. should adopt those systems wholesale. Instead, we’re saying that there are other countries – Western countries – who are dealing with this issue in a much more cost-effective way without compromising outcomes and that we should consider replicating some of those features here. Again, let’s evaluate the pros/cons of all the options and choose those that work best irrespective of which ideologies might be offended.
57 barker13 // Aug 12, 2009 at 10:05 pm

Re: Raygun // Aug 12, 2009 at 8:50 pm (#52) –

Ahh… Pop-Gun! Where have you been…?! Welcome back!

As always, insightful on point focus on the topic. Keep up the good work!

(*WINK*)

Re: Isaac21 // Aug 12, 2009 at 9:01 pm (#53) –

Actually… (*SHRUG*)… Glen Beck references more academic works and has more academicians as well as professional expert “doers” on than most other news/opinion show hosts.

Do you watch Beck? DVR his show for a week and put in a couple hours when you have time browsing his segments. If you’ve never given him a chance you might be surprised.

* Finally… ALEX… back to you –

In all seriousness, I too respect your honesty and don’t begrudge you your youthful certainty. (*WINK*) And, yeah… as a fellow free market kinda guy I agree with your basic thrust on the health insurance/healthcare issue. (You’re a bit “absolute” for my tastes… but, again… that’s youth.)

My main “problem” with you is that your tone and attitude is more likely to repel “our” natural base than keep it with us when it really counts – at the ballot on election day.

Some of these people you show such contempt for as “hicks” and “redneck” have done far more concrete good for this country than an army of David Frum’s.

That’s it. “Hit back” if you must. But consider what I’m trying to get across to you. Be… er… “pragmatic” about it. (*WINK*)

BILL
58 Spartacus // Aug 12, 2009 at 10:05 pm

Chekote: “People are upset with a government that is completely out of control. A government that just keeps on spending, spending, spending.”

To the contrary, it seems that all the seniors are upset that the government won’t keep spending, spending, spending. They’re worried about the proposed $500 billion in cuts from Medicare.

This is one of the very problems Frum addressed on another NM thread when he argued that conservatives should actually be supporting some elements in the Dem proposals. Unfortunately, now that the GOP base has gorged itself on the red meat of “socialized medicine” and “death panels,” it lacks the clarity of thought to concede there are a lot of really good things, even from a conservative’s perspective, in these reform proposals.
59 barker13 // Aug 12, 2009 at 10:24 pm

Re: Spartacus // Aug 12, 2009 at 9:55 pm (#56) –

1) The French system.

Spart. I hear ya. I do! But Obama’s job isn’t to avoid awakening the ever in the shadows and sometimes in the sunlight Francophobia of large segments of the American population… his job is to make the best case he can for “reform” and I believe you and I both recognize that from “your side’s” perspective (as well as “my side” as an intellectual examination of options) President Obama and the Dems should be educating the American Public on the French Health Insurance/Health Care system and other systems which frankly leave the UK/Canadian model (which is what most Americans are familiar with) in the dust in terms of efficiency and outcome.

(You may have to read that a few times… it’s one huge run on sentence!) (*CHUCKLE*)

“Just look at these threads. You and I are on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, but based on your posts above and on your post on a different thread today, I suspect we could probably come to some kind of compromise that results in real reform if we were the decision-makers.”

Yep. It drives me out of my frigg’n skull when people seem more interested in ideology defined as “following the ideological rules” or “rooting for their home team and against the rival team.”

Yep. You and I could no doubt “do business” is we had power and influence. (*WINK*)

“But look how long it’s taken for us to look past each other’s ideology, admit neither of us has a monopoly on all the facts and become willing to judge proposals on their merits.”

And it all started when I made you laugh! (*GRIN*) No… seriously… I hear ya. (*NOD*)

“Now, if Sinz, who owns a computer, has very good reading and writing skills, has more familiarity with the U.S. healthcare system than most Americans, possesses a well-above average knowledge of history and still ends up being DEAD WRONG and unwilling to concede his error about an indisputable fact…”

(*RAISING MY OPEN HANDS UP IN A DEFENSIVE GESTURE*)

Hey… you know Sinz and I are like oil and water at times; other times he stumbles upon the truth and when he does I sing his praises. (*SHRUG*)

“And, it’s not just conservatives or GOPers who don’t inspire my confidence; I think this transcends politics. It just so happens that on the issue of healthcare, it is the Right whose opposition seems less fact-based and more ideological.”

(*APPLAUSE*)

Yep. A pox on both their Houses.

AND… to “return the compliment” you just gave to the Right, as you know, when it comes to foreign policy/defense and trade I’m prone to be damning the GOP (and Dem “establishment” who think likewise) from the Buchanan-Dobbs-Nader angle.

“Incidentally, those of us who point out some of the comparative advantages in these other healthcare systems are not arguing that the U.S. should adopt those systems wholesale. Instead, we’re saying that there are other countries – Western countries – who are dealing with this issue in a much more cost-effective way without compromising outcomes and that we should consider replicating some of those features here. Again, let’s evaluate the pros/cons of all the options and choose those that work best irrespective of which ideologies might be offended.”

EXACTLY…!!! Hear! Hear!

BILL
60 Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 10:29 pm

Spartacus:
“Unfortunately, now that the GOP base has gorged itself on the red meat of “socialized medicine” and “death panels,” it lacks the clarity of thought to concede there are a lot of really good things, even from a conservative’s perspective, in these reform proposals.”

OK, you got me. What are the really good things, even from a conservative’s perspective (on which you are a self-proclaimed authority), in these reform proposals?
61 Spartacus // Aug 12, 2009 at 10:30 pm

Barker, here’s the link about the Singapore system that you once asked me about:

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/01/14/singapores-health-care-system/
62 Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 10:36 pm

Mr. Knepper’s report from the front lines drips with disdain for the rabble with whom he had to put up for those few hours. There is a saying: “Politics makes strange bedfellows.” The New Majority will not be close to a majority if it is confined to such impeccably dressed, finely educated and well-mannered members as Mr. Knepper. If you intend to support the liberals, Knepper, your column is just the ticket. But Ronald Reagan knew that if he wanted to win, and if he wanted to have support during his presidency, he had to bring along folks like the ones at this meeting, as well as middle-class Democratic voters who were worried about jobs and inflation.
63 Spartacus // Aug 12, 2009 at 10:46 pm

barker13 // Aug 12, 2009 at 10:24 pm

I completely agree with you that part of Obama’s job is to educate the public about all of the options. Even if he is ridiculed by the far Right, the media would probably be doing lots of news segments on those other systems, and most people would become better informed.

“And it all started when I made you laugh! (*GRIN*) No… seriously… I hear ya. (*NOD*)”

Actually, for me it started before that. Early on I think I leveled a slight insult at you and you dealt with it through humor. I found that admirable.

“you know Sinz and I are like oil and water at times”

I mean no disrespect toward Sinz. He just seems completely incapable of conceding a point when he is wrong. Look, he may have good reasons for not wanting a French-style system, but that shouldn’t get in the way of him admitting he is wrong about it being a single-payer system. It’s like they say, we’re entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

At any rate, gotta get some dinner.
64 Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 11:07 pm

Spartacus – That link to healthcare economist is great. Thanks. Did you happen to catch the one about India? Check this out (from The Economist):

The rich world’s bloated health-care systems can learn from India’s entrepreneurs

Tom Pietrasik

ENTER the main cardiac operating-room at Bangalore’s Wockhardt hospital on a typical morning, and you will find a patient on the operating table with a screen hanging between his head and chest. On a recent visit the table was occupied by a middle-aged Indian man whose serene look suggested that he was ready for the operation to come. Asked how he was, he smiled and answered in Kannada that he felt fine. Only when you stand on a stool to look over the screen do you realise that his chest cavity has already been cut open.

As the patient was chatting away, Vivek Jawali and his team had nearly completed his complex heart bypass. Because such “beating heart” surgery causes little pain and does not require general anaesthesia or blood thinners, patients are back on their feet much faster than usual. This approach, pioneered by Wockhardt, an Indian hospital chain, has proved so safe and successful that medical tourists come to Bangalore from all over the world.
65 txanne // Aug 12, 2009 at 11:09 pm

Alex, you seem very much like the people you mock in this piece. You are just better educated and better equipped to articulate their essential greivance.
66 Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 11:29 pm

Spartacus;

“I suspect he doesn’t do this because of the extreme prejudice (not racial, but cultural prejudice) that so many Americans have against foreign societies – particularly of Europe, as well as the demagoguery that many on the Right would immediately engage in. If a U.S. Congressman were willing to take the time to push for a change in the name of “French Fries” merely because France, a long-time ally who happened to be right, refused to support our misadventure in Iraq, what chance is there of getting a fair hearing when stating that there are elements of the French system that are worth evaluating and considering for implementation here?”

You never let up. Just like Obama, knocking down straw men and dismissing the opponents’ arguments. Why doesn’t Obama educate the American people about those systems? Because he is not interested in a solution that is best, he is interested in his solution. Ideology. He’s not afraid of how the Right would react–I mean, he is President, he has the media feeding from his hand, and he has Congress. I consume plenty of news coverage, and I see Obama making appearances virtually every day, which does get rather tiresome, and he makes no effort at educating people. He could easily do it. My opinion as to why not? He suspects that if people learn all the details of his programs they will be strongly opposed to them, and he wants to rush them through before the opposition gets a chance to build. And his best chance at success is to a) redirect attention to all the terrible things these unhinged town hall meeting mobs are doing; b) stigmatizing the GOP as obstructionist, knee-jerk boobs with no alternatives (Spartacus agrees with that part, I think); c) rush the thing through before people have a chance to learn what’s in it, because he knows damn well there is plenty in that bill to get just about everybody in the country mad; d) along with Pelosi, strong-arm any Democratic Congressmen who have the temerity to oppose the Anointed One’s mission; e) collar the CBO and ‘educate’ them on the true economic implications of the plan, which are upside-down economics; spending another $trillion is really saving money; being shunted to the Public Option because you lost your employer-provided coverage is the same as ‘keeping the plan you have if you like it,’ and so on; f) give talks day after day obfuscating and dissembling about the bill, in hopes that his irresistible oratorical genius will, as it always has, get him what he wants.

In my opinion it would be an indication of the level of honesty and objectivity of a liberal to get his assessment of Obama’s statements about this plan. If he can admit that Obama has thus far been considerably less than forthright, but instead has become the dictionary definition of disingenuousness every time he discusses it, then that liberal is a straight shooter. If, however, he cannot see these things and admit them about his fearless leader, then that calls into question either his integrity, his objectiveness, or his intelligence, at a minimum.
67 Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 11:35 pm

Barker, Spartacus -

What do you think of the Swiss model? As I understand it, it works well, and it avoids most of the government interference and coercion that ObamaCare is riddled with.
68 Moderate // Aug 12, 2009 at 11:44 pm

I attended my Representative’s town hall meeting yesterday, and it was civil. Although the audience was almost entirely white, middle-aged to old, and ~75% conservative, they avoided the histrionics witnessed by Alex.

It’s obviously a demographic issue. I live on the West Coast, in a well-off suburban district. The “dumb overfed hicks” live in other districts.

My Republican Congressman was happy to answer our questions, and was quite personable as well as knowledgeable.

AlexK

“We have heard much in the time about the common man. It is a concept that pays little attention to the history of a nation that grew great through the initiative and ambition of uncommon men.”
69 Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 11:44 pm

Spartacus:
”
“To the contrary, it seems that all the seniors are upset that the government won’t keep spending, spending, spending. They’re worried about the proposed $500 billion in cuts from Medicare.”

This point is so disingenuous and obnoxious that it hardly merits attention. However, since it is also widespread in the liberal punditry, I have a comment. The Medicare recipients are right to be concerned, but the spending they want to protect is an EXISTING program that is being threatened by the obscene spending of the Obama administration. They are NOT advocating new spending by Obama.

When Bush proposed Social Security reform that positively safeguards the benefits of existing and soon-to-be beneficiaries, Democrats engaged in irresponsible fear-mongering in order to put an immediate halt the the campaign. Dirty, dirty politics, but it worked like Old Reliable. Now, when the shoe is on the other foot, only this time the concerns are real, the Democrats don’t have the common decency to acknowledge that senior citizens and the GOP have a legitimate concern. These people have no shame.
70 AlexK // Aug 12, 2009 at 11:51 pm

Jim Pier – I am in no way recommending that politicians adopt my attitude. I am a commentator, not a statesman. Any statesman who would take my tone should be voted out of office for PR incompetence. But we should maintain some level of elitism — it’s what we mean by “the best and the brightest.” Those words should mean something.

A couple have accused me of not recognizing that, to most people, this is not a philosophical issue, but one that directly impacts their lives. But all issues are philosophical at their core. I do, of course, recognize that it impacts real people, which is why I’m so opposed to it! Ideas have consequences. — I’m as opposed to it on a personal level as they are — do you think I want a single-payer model taking care of me? Do you think I want to grow up and witness private care being abolished? Do you think I want to see progress in developing new life-saving drugs come to a stand-still? No, no, and a resounding no. But at the same time, there were a million and one people asking such questions. I thought my question was an appropriate break from that. Rage can only get a group so far, as well-placed as it is.

Oh, and what a couple of people called my “absolutism” when it comes to free markets is actually just me daring to take the logic to its natural conclusion.
71 AlexK // Aug 12, 2009 at 11:54 pm

“I think anyone who has watched cspan realizes Cardin is a hack. Of course, the majority of people have time during the work week to go to these town hall meetings are going to skew to a certain demographic, i.e. older, probably poorer, and possibly more uninformed than the average person. And as noted in previous posts, we have a lot of obese people in this country. Is that really relevant? It appears that over the past two years, you lost some weight. ”

LOL. My old blog…my goodness. That was so long ago. I’m a little irritated that it shows up on Google posts.

Yeah, I lost about 90 pounds through diet and exercise (although I’ve gained about 20 back in the past year — but that’s okay, since I was bordering on being underweight).

Most people who are obese are clearly lacking something in self-control and self-discipline. Is it really an accident that the biggest are also the loudest at these events? Using my ultra-scientific calculations, I project that there is a strongly positive correlation between size and volume.

“Did you really need to need to go to the town hall to reach these conclusions?”

Yes. You really have to be there to get a truly full sense of what’s going on. Standing in line and waiting with people, hearing the discussions, watching people interact, seeing people file in and wait in line to ask their questions — there are subtle little things.
72 Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 11:56 pm

moderate said:

My Republican Congressman was happy to answer our questions, and was quite personable as well as knowledgeable.

No doubt. The Democratic Congressmen are in the difficult position of being asked to defend a program they know is a bad program (most of them) to an audience that is only there because they are angry about it for one reason or another. That would not be pleasant, and I do not envy them the task. However, I do fault them in that for the most part, referring to the clips I have seen, they are not really attempting to respond to the concerns of their constituents or honestly educate them about what is and is not in the bill and why they are advocating it. Arlen Specter is a great example, because he has been covered quite a bit. In one, he starts right out with dissembling, which is immediately recognized as such, and the “mob” boos and shouts “No!” He says he and his staff had to read the bill fast, which really drew the boos and shouts of No! There was also extensive footage of another meeting that was not allowed to get so raucus. In all the footage, there was not one instance of Specter explaining what was really in the bill. No calm, knowledgeable explanation as to why their concerns are unwarranted, and what the bill will do to reform the health insurance market. He just would tell the audience that something they were worried about wasn’t in there, but without any supporting detail.
73 steelyblades // Aug 13, 2009 at 12:12 am

It sounds like Alex is defining this debate as reform vs. no reform, which is a shame. Anyone who doesn’t recognize that our largely unregulated free market health care system is not working just isn’t paying attention. The “leave it alone” argument for me is a non-starter. But unfortunately that is the way this debate is getting framed by many folks now.

It would be great if there were leaders within the Republican Party who could offer reforms that were consistent with conservative principles, and provided a legitimate temper to the Democrats. Maybe that isn’t going to happen this time around, which to me seems like a great missed opportunity. I would love to see a lively discussion about the nature of reform, as opposed to a debate about whether or not reform is even necessary.
74 greg_barton // Aug 13, 2009 at 1:39 am

steelyblades, there are no leaders in the Republican party. Never have been. If they had leaders, someone could lead them to better themselves and accomplish positive things. Instead, when they gain power, they simply disrupt, corrupt, and destroy. That’s all they know how to do.
75 Spartacus // Aug 13, 2009 at 2:41 am

Jim Pier: “What are the really good things, even from a conservative’s perspective (on which you are a self-proclaimed authority), in these reform proposals?”

I have never proclaimed, or even implied, any authority on the conservative perspective. Your allegation that I have suggests your emotions are controlling your analysis of what I have written.

You may find it beneficial take a break and cool down.
76 Spartacus // Aug 13, 2009 at 3:42 am

Barker, Sinz, Jim Pier et al, you may find the link below interesting:

http://trueslant.com/matthewsteinglass/2009/08/11/that-slope-just-aint-very-slippery/
77 AlexK // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:46 am

“our largely unregulated free market health care system”

Surely you jest.
78 What is everyone so angry about? « Cognitive Resurgence // Aug 13, 2009 at 5:27 am

[...] is everyone so angry about? I just read a very interesting article on newmajority.com. In it, a conservative attends a town hall and describes his experience [...]
79 ottovbvs // Aug 13, 2009 at 7:07 am

Chekote // Aug 12, 2009 at 8:13 pm

Otto

“Most of the people who are very upset about this bill are seniors. Do you honestly think that making tickets available through the Internet, who do you think favors? Seniors? Young people?

…….You obviously didn’t watch Obama’s townhall because I would have said the audience was disproportionatly middle aged and above…….and why would seniors be upset since they are in the main participating in state funded healthcare…..could they have been sold a bill of goods I wonder?
80 ottovbvs // Aug 13, 2009 at 7:22 am

Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 10:36 pm

” will not be close to a majority if it is confined to such impeccably dressed, finely educated and well-mannered members as Mr. Knepper.”

…….Mr Knepper doesn’t look a candidate for GQ to me……in fact his sartorial leanings look more like standard journalistic grunge.

70 ireign // Aug 12, 2009 at 11:46 pm

“I guess after reading this column, I left wondering so what is your point… Basically, you concluded that what was shown on television was an accurate depiction of these town hall meetings and that your Senator was a hack. I think anyone who has watched cspan realizes Cardin is a hack. ”

……..I’m sure your beau ideals of non hackery would be Inhofe or Bunning

“Did you really need to need to go to the town hall to reach these conclusions?”

…….He’s just reporting from the front lines as the rag tag army of loudmouthed idiots the right has recruited do their thing in the full glare of public view….they are doing Obama a huge favor if they but knew it
81 sinz54 // Aug 13, 2009 at 7:34 am

Spartacus: I’m willing to concede my error. The French system is not a 100% single-payer system. The French Government does pay 80% of health care costs in France, with private insurance making up the other 20%.

But I’m also going to remind YOU that the goal of the American Left is a single-payer system, and the so-called “public option” is their foot in the door toward that end. That too is a fact, one that I spent the entire month having to waste my time here proving the obvious, being ridiculed by “ottovbs” who continued to claim it was a myth–until the liberal poster “balconesfault” admitted that sure, that’s their goal.

Part of the problem has been this deliberate duplicity on the part of the Left, telling themselves one thing and telling the American people another. YouTube makes that impossible anymore. A real debate on philosophy and complex nuances of policy is impossible when one side keeps lying about its real philosophy.

On OpenLeft.com, a Left website, the well-known Leftist, David Sirota, took Obama to task for lying about his prior advocacy of single-payer:

http://www.openleft.com/diary/14576/obama-vs-obama-on-single-payer

Spartacus then asks: “Why won’t those who are opposed to reform simply admit they value the benefits of unregulated free markets over the benefits of reform?”

Admit it??? They’re PROUD of it! Go over to RedState.com and see for yourself.

The fact that you used the word “admit” implies you think that free markets are something to be ashamed of. That figures.
82 sinz54 // Aug 13, 2009 at 7:40 am

RLHotchkiss sez: “The Hippies led the Democratic party into a generation in the wilderness. But these people disrupting the meetings will kill the Republican party.”

No.
The reason the hippies destroyed the Dem Party was cultural: It was the sex, the drugs, the weird rock music, the poor grooming, the primitive lifestyle, and the bizarre clothing of the counter-culture that average Americans found so alienating.

These right-wing protesters today are right in the cultural mainstream: Elderly retired, middle-class, well-groomed, often well-dressed, clearly not part of any counter-culture. They are us, whereas the cultural Left has always been a breed apart. Unlike the bizarre hippies of Haight-Ashbury, any of these elderly right-wing protesters could be my own parents.
83 ottovbvs // Aug 13, 2009 at 7:51 am

sinz54 // Aug 13, 2009 at 7:40 am

” These right-wing protesters today are right in the cultural mainstream: Elderly retired, middle-class, well-groomed, often well-dressed”

……screaming, overweight, ranting, shoving……yes right in the Republican mainstream certainly……..I can see how these repellant nut cases would appeal to you Sinz…..whether that appeal is wider is more of an open question

…….Whereas the:
“It was the sex, the drugs, the weird rock music”

…….the sex, pot and rock music seems to have caught on
84 sinz54 // Aug 13, 2009 at 7:53 am

Spartacus sez: “merely because France, a long-time ally who happened to be right, refused to support our misadventure in Iraq”

No. France has been a thorn in America’s side for a lot longer than that. Check your history.

Americans also tend to hold France in contempt for having a larger army than Germany in the 1930s, yet folding up like a house of cards against Germany’s expansionist policies.
85 sinz54 // Aug 13, 2009 at 8:13 am

ottovbvs: The protesters at these town-hall meetings don’t have to “appeal” to anybody.

The old Left-wing term for what they’re doing is “consciousness raising.”

They get HEADLINES. Then millions of other Americans say to themselves, “What are they protesting? I had better take a closer look at this health care bill for myself.”

What these protesters did, is stop Obama’s hopes of railroading a doctrinaire liberal health care bill through Congress without any public debate.

Obama made a name for himself as a “community organizer.” Those demonstrations were deliberately noisy and vocal–to wake up the community. Obama himself told his supporters: “Argue with neighbors–get in their faces!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCMDur9CDZ4

Turnabout is fair play.
86 balconesfault // Aug 13, 2009 at 8:16 am

“until the liberal poster “balconesfault” admitted that sure, that’s their goal.”

First, I conceded that there are those on the left who favor a single payer system … at the same time, there are many on the left who favor a much more diverse model, like the French. Personally, I don’t think that the government can afford the cost to provide all levels of medical care to everyone, and believe that economics does have to play some role in the “rationing” decision, for lack of a better term.

There is a basic level of care that we’re better off as a society, more competitive, more ready to respond to serious epidemics, not to mention more just, if we offer to all. There are also some elective procedures, other highly expensive procedures, that we should allow people to insure themselves for by purchasing rider policies on the free market.

I think many people see the “public option” as a pathway to just this model, and not a single payer system. Some people see a public option as leading to a single payer.

Some see any form of nationalized healthcare as leading to excessive queuing and bureacracy and intrusion … which makes me wonder why any insurance company or fan of private insurance would fear the public option. It seems that if that is the experience of those using the public option, it will certainly lose out in the marketplace to the private insurers who provide coverage free of queuing and bureacracy and intrusion.

In other words, the question here isn’t what some liberals believe a private option will grow into … the question is why you embrace their vision as the likely outcome?
87 sinz54 // Aug 13, 2009 at 8:36 am

balconesfault: As I’ve told you before, Americans will gladly put up with bureaucracy and long lines if they can get health care coverage for nearly “free,” as compared to shorter lines and less bureaucracy from Blue Cross with its $800 per month premiums.

It comes down to just how the public option will be paid for, and how low its premiums and reimbursement rates will be. In other words, will it compete fairly or unfairly against the private insurers? Cut the premiums to $34.00 a month (which is what the public option in Massachusetts, Network Health Forward, charges)–and most Americans will jump to it, long lines and bureaucracy be damned.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus is demanding that the reimbursement rates for the public option should be set to no more than 5% above Medicare rates. That would make it just too good a bargain for most Americans to pass up. To set the reimbursement rates that low while insuring the millions of currently uninsured would require massive Federal subsidies out of general revenues. For the public option to draw on the nearly infinite Federal treasury with its perpetual printing press endlessly churning out new money, is unfair competition intended to create an eventual monopoly.

I guess the only monopolies liberals don’t mind are those created by Government agencies.
88 barker13 // Aug 13, 2009 at 8:42 am

Re: Spartacus // Aug 12, 2009 at 10:30 pm (#61) –

Thanks, Spart!

re: http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/01/14/singapores-health-care-system/

1) “…mandatory HSA’s…”

Yep. Broadly speaking I could go for that; it’s along the lines of what I believe is wise policy. The caveat being, while I can philosophically justify mandatory catastrophic insurance (since treatment WILL be provided and if you don’t require mandatory catastrophic insurance you allow the uninsured a “free ride” if and when they require medical care) philosophically justifying the non-catastrophic insurance component of the HSA concept is problematic.

Solution? Well… either “relax” the philosophical rigidity of the “free choice” model and say if you want to live in American society you need to get yearly check-ups and other medically accepted preventive care along the road of life so we’re requiring you to get a true HSA for your own sake because it simply makes sense, or, ratchet up the premium costs for catastrophic insurance to account for refusal to take responsible preventive health measures via “forced” HSA savings and expenditures.

2) “…private healthcare system competes with the public healthcare…”

No. Because competition between government and non-government is always by necessity a rigged game. For example, when push comes to shove Blackwater isn’t “competing” with the military – the military (i.e. the government) can shut them down wherever they are whatever they’re doing in a moment flat at will. Private security at its tightest and most professional (think Disney theme parks or high profile/value corporate sites and research centers) must give way to the lowliest “officer of the law” with a badge representing the authority of government when that officer declares jurisdiction and the authority that goes with it. Think FedEx/UPS vs. the USPS – the government says they can compete on package delivery but not on “letters” and post cards. FedEx/UPS says “that’s not fair,” government says, “tough – that’s the way it is.”

Yes, we already have Medicare… (*SIGH*)… and yes, no doubt Medicare has led to better quality of life for probably the majority of seniors. That said, for all the good there’s a lot of bad. Medicare is going broke. (*SHRUG*)

Bottom line, let’s see government FIX Medicare’s problems successfully before we EXPAND government’s role over national healthcare.

Finally… the VA. Hey… if you want to be able to utilize VA services join the military. If you want to get BJs from loose chubby interns in the Oval Office… run for and win the presidency. Every job has it’s perks! (*WINK*) (*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN*)

3) “Private healthcare providers are required to publish price lists to encourage comparison shopping.”

(*THUMBS UP*)

I favor doing away with a tiered price system based on “who you are” and “who covers you.” The price should be the price. Now this doesn’t mean uniform prices anymore than from week to week you’re gonna pay the same prices in one supermarket for one item over the same item in another supermarket. But pricing MUST be transparent! Period.

(And since my scenario calls for an end to second/third party “providers” of health insurance – a return to the individual responsibility model where all adults are responsible for their own insurance and their minor childrens’ insurance – the same pricing schedule for each individual regardless of who he or she works for or even when the individual doesn’t work, has no employer, say is a stay at home spouse – will work just fine.)

(Oh… and to those who worry about loss of “economics of scale” – the corporate/government discount – you’re missing the point. Under my scenario the ENTIRE POPULATION would be “the scale.” You can’t get bigger than that.) (*SHRUG*)

4) “The government pays for “basic healthcare services…”

Nope!

WE are the government. US – ALL OF US! WE!

I no more want the government paying for “basic healthcare services” than I want the government paying for “basic food requirements” or “basic clothing requirements” or “basic housing requirements.”

As I wrote above, either you’re expected to take care of your own “basic” medical requirements (just as you do with a host of life’s other requirements) or else your catastrophic insurance premiums will reflect your lack of responsibility and the added risk your behavior adds to the actuarial costs – which you will be forced to bear under my proposals.

4) “Government plays a big role with contagious disease…”

Yep. Makes sense. No argument.

5) “The government provides optional low-cost catastrophic health insurance, plus a safety net “subject to stringent means-testing.””

Nope. You provide catastrophic health insurance for yourself and your minor children and any “safety net” is just that – a strictly means tested safety net which will of necessity of course be government subsidized – but to the minimum extent possible.

6) “Almost all care is subject to significant co-pays.”

Nope. Insurance is for catastrophic care ONLY. Otherwise you pay out of pocket. What’s “catastrophic?” It depends what your income is. There would have to be a scale. There would have to be a percentage point of your income when your medical cost responsibilities end and no-deductible total insurance reimbursement kicks in. (Say just for the sake of argument… once your yearly total medical expenses have reached 15% of your income the catastrophic care kicks in. And, yes, we’d adjust the numbers for “family” vs. “individual” while still placing the emphasis on the individual. Let’s say you’ve had a terrible medical year with multiple family members all getting sick; that’s when the safety net would kick in so that a family of four with four sick people wouldn’t be paying 15% X 4 = 60%. There would be an adjustment to take account of such situations.)

Anyway… Spart… thanks for passing that link on!

Now I believe we’ve got something for people to talk about instead of talk around.

(*WINK*)

BILL
89 barker13 // Aug 13, 2009 at 8:58 am

Re: Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 11:29 pm (#66) –

“Why doesn’t Obama educate the American people about those systems? Because he is not interested in a solution that is best, he is interested in his solution. Ideology. He’s not afraid of how the Right would react–I mean, he is President, he has the media feeding from his hand, and he has Congress. I consume plenty of news coverage, and I see Obama making appearances virtually every day, which does get rather tiresome, and he makes no effort at educating people. He could easily do it. My opinion as to why not? He suspects that if people learn all the details of his programs they will be strongly opposed to them, and he wants to rush them through before the opposition gets a chance to build. And his best chance at success is to a) redirect attention to all the terrible things these unhinged town hall meeting mobs are doing; b) stigmatizing the GOP as obstructionist, knee-jerk boobs with no alternatives (Spartacus agrees with that part, I think); c) rush the thing through before people have a chance to learn what’s in it, because he knows damn well there is plenty in that bill to get just about everybody in the country mad; d) along with Pelosi, strong-arm any Democratic Congressmen who have the temerity to oppose the Anointed One’s mission; e) collar the CBO and ‘educate’ them on the true economic implications of the plan, which are upside-down economics; spending another $trillion is really saving money; being shunted to the Public Option because you lost your employer-provided coverage is the same as ‘keeping the plan you have if you like it,’ and so on; f) give talks day after day obfuscating and dissembling about the bill, in hopes that his irresistible oratorical genius will, as it always has, get him what he wants.”

Wow. (*NOD*) Impressive.

Hey… call me a cynical mfer… in my estimation Jim is right on target.

(*THUMBS UP*) (*APPLAUSE*)

BILL

P.S. – And for what it’s worth… I WISH TO HELL IT WASN’T TRUE…!!!

This is not a “sport.” This is not a “game.” This is REAL LIFE and what these bastards do (or don’t do) in DC and the various state capitals greatly impacts ALL of our lives and our children’s lives and forward from there.

I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK…!!!

I don’t want 1,000+ page bills passed by congress when no Member of the House or Senate has bothered to read the bill! (And I’ve felt this way all my life – or at least from high school on!)

I don’t want CROOKS and TAX CHEATS and men and women who lack both integrity and common sense in power… but they are!

Think about it! Geithner is Treasury Secretary! Dodd… Barney Frank… frigg’n Charlie RANGEL…

…and on and on and on…

(*DEEP BREATH*)

Rant off.
90 franco 2 // Aug 13, 2009 at 9:00 am

Town hall meetings are for what exactly? Philosophical debates?

The very IDEA that town hall meetings are supposed to be civil debates on philosophy betrays a very special kind of elitism.

I find it fascinating that those who are best capable of running and broadcasting real philosophical debates on health care haven’t even tried. I haven’t seen CNN or Fox or ABC NBC -any of them, set up any kind of real debate with various sides represented, has anyone?

Has any mainstream reporter looked into the substance of the bill and explained it? No, not really. They are content to report on polls, anger, signs, and confrontations.

Now to our politicians – have they encouraged debate? No, they have not. They have shown little or no interest to debate. They have decided they will go ahead with the plan regardless of public opinion, even while admitting they really don’t know all the details. And what need really do they have to know the bill since it won’t affect them and their families?

Then when they succeed in awakening and angering ordinary citizens by lying, distorting, suspiciously rushing, brazenly admitting they haven’t read the bill (and don’t really need to read it -John Conyers), they accuse ordinary people of rudely shouting them down.

Those politicians who are promoting this bill have failed to explain it despite many opportunities. They can each go on any number of cable shows, radio shows, they can write editorials in newspapers to explain their positions, but they literally have to hide what is in the bill, which is exactly why they have been unavailable for open debate.

Now because public opinion stalled the bill over the congressional recess, these so-called representatives have to face their constituents and this is the natural result.

Now they have only one weapon in their arsenal – smear those who have legitimate gripes with people carrying swastika signs, and Alex is perfectly willing to go along.

In Alex’s world every citizen is a spokesman and representative of everyone else. Some are obese? That looks bad. Some are La Rouche supporters? That taints the whole crowd. No calm and civil moderates there? Perhaps those folks don’t quite care enough to go to such a function. The one moderate there, Alex himself, seems also to be more interested in reporting on the type of crowd than what the Senator said. Why? Oh yeah, he knows the Senator is ineffective, that’s a given, so we must criticize those who are angry. We know many of our Senators are lying to us, we know they are craven scoundrels, but that shouldn’t make us angry, noooooo that looks bad. And of course we know that every citizen comes to sites like New Majority to find out how they should conduct themselves so as to persuade the maximum number of people…gee don’t those stupid rednecks READ?

We must have a philosophical debate, but never mind such a debate is impossible when one side controls the microphones and sets the agenda – oh, and LIES. No, constituents have no right to be angry when they are told bold-faced lies by their supposed representatives, they need to be civil at all times and if even a few stray in impoliteness it dooms the entire argument. No matter that one side lies and distorts, anger is the mortal sin to these people, except when they are angry then it’s Democracy.
91 barker13 // Aug 13, 2009 at 9:07 am

Re: Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 11:35 pm (#67) –

“What do you think of the Swiss model?”

I don’t know anything about it. (*SHRUG*)

I do know a bit about Switzerland and thus don’t imagine there’s much we could simply transfer or even learn from in the sense that we’re far different societies demographically and historically.

I could be wrong though! I’m always open to being convinced.

BILL

* P.S. – Jim, as you’ve hopefully noticed, I’m pretty good with outlining *my* concrete suggestions and my reasoning for believing what I do. This isn’t to say I’m against “learning” from others – including the Swiss – but at a certain point we’ve got to focus on the types of concepts – as well as specific proposals – that I so often bring up.

This isn’t to pat myself on the back or to denigrate others. As you’ve seen, I’m quite keen on debating and exchanging ideas with folks like Spartacus who are not my natural political/ideological “allies” in the traditional “team” sense. I’m simply saying that we need to focus on specific proposals as they apply to America and our unique national identity.

* P.P.S. – But of course… (*SMILE*) (*SIGH*)… my idea of our “national identity” may not always be in line with that of certain of my fellow Americans… so round and round we go….

(*WINK*)
92 barker13 // Aug 13, 2009 at 9:11 am

Re: Moderate // Aug 12, 2009 at 11:44 pm (#68) –

Mod QUOTING Alex: “We have heard much in the time about the common man. It is a concept that pays little attention to the history of a nation that grew great through the initiative and ambition of uncommon men.”

Hmm… I wonder how Alex feels about “Old Hickory,” Andrew Jackson?

* Alex – Chime in! Speak up!

BILL
93 balconesfault // Aug 13, 2009 at 9:19 am

sinz: I’m listening, and I understand your concerns … but you still lose me here.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus is demanding that the reimbursement rates for the public option should be set to no more than 5% above Medicare rates. That would make it just too good a bargain for most Americans to pass up.

How does the reimbursement rate make it a good bargain for the consumer? The question I though was on the table is whether the reimbursement rate would make it worthwhile for the provider. Set too low a reimbursement rate, without a sufficiently large pool (eg – Medicare) and providers will simply choose not to participate in the program.

set the reimbursement rates that low while insuring the millions of currently uninsured would require massive Federal subsidies out of general revenues.

Again, I ask … how?
94 balconesfault // Aug 13, 2009 at 9:26 am

bill: I don’t want 1,000+ page bills passed by congress when no Member of the House or Senate has bothered to read the bill! (And I’ve felt this way all my life – or at least from high school on!)

Bill, 1000+ page bills will always be passed by Congress without individual Congressmen reading every line – because there’s no time for them to do that and spend the amount of time it takes for them to fundraise. And even if they did keep up with all that reading, there is enough legalese and cross referencing and such that they probably wouldn’t do a particularly good job of it. God knows from some of the comments I’ve read from certain individuals who claim to have read the bill, they’ve missed a ton, often grabbing one line out of context and jumping to conclusions about what it means without seeming to have actually gone to the hard work of looking exactly at what “Paragraph 2 Section B” referred to.

That is why they hire staff, to break down and read those things, and visit and revisit all those cross-references, and make sure that at the end of the day the Congressman is voting on something that advances some policies without stepping on the toes of too many of his supporters.

I guess you also believe that Supreme Court Justices should always write in full any of their opinions that they are said to have authored, and Presidents should always be responsible for writing their own speeches?
95 barker13 // Aug 13, 2009 at 9:42 am

Re: Spartacus // Aug 13, 2009 at 3:42 am (#77) –

Spart. Let’s get one thing out of the way. Obama clearly envisions a slow but sure evolution (or devolution depending upon your mindset) towards single pay government provided healthcare.

I’ve seen clips and heard audio of him making that case over the past few years; plus, from what I gather of Obama’s underlying ideology and mindset this goal makes perfect ethical as well as pragmatic sense to him – and to a host of other prominent Democrats and to a large segment of what we loosely define as “the Left” or “liberalism.”

In any case, besides the fact that – in relation to the Steinglass essay – I do indeed believe the slope IS that slippery, there’s the fact that I have my own proposals and beliefs concerning the direction we should be headed in and frankly “Obamacare” (*GRIN*) is the WRONG direction from my perspective.

Hey… all I can do is keep on advancing my proposals and ideas. I only wish there were national GOP leaders echoing me and engaging in meaningful back and forth with the Democrats.

God. The news media sucks, doesn’t it…?!?! They could be doing SO MUCH MORE to actually illuminate and educate rather than cheerlead or sensationalize.

Hey… I’m with young Alex in terms of his recognition that “the average American” doesn’t have the indepth knowledge and background many of us here (at NM, at other “serious” blogs) do, but that doesn’t mean that articulate sincere politicians from BOTH Parties and along with the MSM can’t address these pragmatic as well as philosophical/ethical issues in an understandable straight forward manner such as many of us try to here.

BILL
96 Chekote // Aug 13, 2009 at 9:43 am

There are about four healthcare reform bills in Congress being considered. So which bill is Obama talking about? We have amateur hour. What is needed is congressional hearings taking up 0ne issue at the time. Analyze and develop solutions. The uninsured. Who are they? Why? Same with costs. That would be a thoughtful way to find solutions. Instead, Obama is on the road selling a product that hasn’t been finalized. Palin is launching verbal grenades from the comfort of Facebook. Pelosi is busy demonizing private citizens. Let’s face it. There are no grown ups in DC.
97 franco 2 // Aug 13, 2009 at 9:54 am

I just went to read and watch this meeting. Wow. Pretty raucous. The Senator did OK for a lying POS and you can even see Alex waiting in line to ask his question. Funny though it wasn’t selected for the video segment (too civil I suppose, and therefore not worthy) though in fairness his question was quoted in the text.

“Alex Knepper of Williamsport asked Cardin to explain what rights he thinks Americans have. Cardin said the federal government has a responsibility to make sure citizens have health care.

During an interview later, Knepper said he didn’t think Cardin had given the principle behind his question much thought.

He also said the event didn’t accomplish a lot.

“I don’t think anyone knows anything more than when they went in there and I would blame that equal parts on the audience and the senator,” Knepper said. ”

Here is the basic problem; the politicians have lost the trust of people, and I mean really and fully, above and beyond normal suspicion and skepticism. It matters little what is in the bill at this point because it can and will be used however the government bureaucracy wishes. Just like Social Security, just like everything the government touches. The public now openly distrusts politicians and they have every reason, do they not? Politicians, especially Democrats, but quite a few Republicans, are out of touch with ordinary Americans, and elitism and smears of “UnAmerican” aren’t persuading us.
98 barker13 // Aug 13, 2009 at 10:21 am

Re: Sinz54 // Aug 13, 2009 at 7:34 am (#82) –

“I’m willing to concede my error.”

(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

And the crowd goes wild…!!!

(*GRIN*) (*WINK*)

“…I’m also going to remind [Spartacus] that the goal of the American Left is a single-payer system, and the so-called “public option” is their foot in the door toward that end. That too is a fact..”

Quite right! (*NOD*)

Re: Balconesfault // Aug 13, 2009 at 8:16 am (#87) –

“There is a basic level of care that we’re better off as a society, more competitive, more ready to respond to serious epidemics, not to mention more just, if we offer to all.”

(*HEADACHE*) Balc just doesn’t get it. (*SIGH*)

Here… let’s make it easy for Balc…

1) “There is a basic level of housing…blah, blah, blah… that we (i.e. government, taxpayer supported) should offer to all (“all,” not just those who require a safety net, not just the poor, the truly needy, but “all”).

NOPE!

2) “There is a basic level of food provision…blah, blah, blah… that we (i.e. government, taxpayer supported) should offer to all (“all,” not just those who require a safety net, not just the poor, the truly needy, but “all”).

NOPE!

3) “There is a basic level of clothing…blah, blah, blah… that we (i.e. government, taxpayer supported) should offer to all (“all,” not just those who require a safety net, not just the poor, the truly needy, but “all”).

NOPE!

And so forth and so on…

(*SIGH*)

(*MIGRAINE HEADACHE*)

Re: Balconesfault // Aug 13, 2009 at 9:26 am (#93) –

“Bill, 1000+ page bills will always be passed by Congress without individual Congressmen reading every line…”

Folks… there’s the problem. Folks like Balc aren’t interested in “reform.” They’re not interested in trading dysfunction for function. They accept mediocrity and abuse and thus are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

This is NOT an ad hominem attack on Balc. This is simply to point out that we’ve got millions – tens of millions – of “Balc’s” as part of our citizenry and the weight of them will inevitably destroy this country.

I know… I know… they don’t see it; perhaps most of you don’t see it. After all, who can imagine the “fall” of America?

The combination of ignorance, apathy, plain wrongheadedness, and the sheer “physics” of “momentum” serve to predict the future.

Hey… for my kid’s sake and all your kid’s sakes and their kid’s sakes I hope folks like me and “those nasty town hall folks and nasty tea party folks” can slow the momentum and postpone the day of reckoning… but human nature being what it is… just as each day each of us is closer to death… each day our beloved country comes closer to no longer being the beloved country of our cherished (and yes, polished – no doubt) memories.

“And even if they did keep up with all that reading, there is enough legalese and cross referencing and such that they probably wouldn’t do a particularly good job of it.”

(*SIGH*)

Balc. Just as we don’t need 1,000+ page bills in the first place… we don’t need bills filled with legalese to the point where they’re almost understandable.

Look. (*SIGH*) Read a Supreme Court Decision. ANY Supreme Court Decision. Read the Decision and the concurrences and the dissents. Basically… you’ll be able to follow what the ruling/concurrences/dissents were all about and regurgitate the facts and bottom line.

In other words, even with legal citations thrown in and references to past Decisions cited, a USSC Decision/Ruling is understandable to any reasonably intelligent citizen who takes the time to do the reading. (And… I don’t know of any 1,000+ rulings – do you…???)

Now contrast this to the modern legislative process. I haven’t read the bill myself. I haven’t read the bill… I haven’t read the bill PLUS the 250+ amendments to the PROPOSAL… but from snippets I’ve read the bill is a mess – unreadable, almost impossible to “track” even for someone like me who ENJOYS reading this kind of thing and has the education and background so as to be EXPECTED to be able to understand it.

Balc. YOU DON’T SEE THIS AS A PROBLEM…?!?!

(*SIGH*)

(*CHEST PAINS*)

“That is why they hire staff…”

Nope. That’s NOT the way it’s supposed to be. That’s NOT what’s in the Constitution. The MEMBERS of Congress (House/Senate) are supposed to personally deliberate and then armed with a personal understanding of bills vote “aye” or “nay.”

Let me tell you a little something about “staff,” Balc…

Back when I was running the British Empire back in the Fall of ‘86 (yeah, yeah, with a little help from Maggie and Liz) the governing Party senior backbench Member of Parliment (House of Commons) whom I worked for had ONE secretary – WHOM HE SHARED WITH ANOTHER MEMBER – and ONE full time researcher (aide) and… ME.

No, Balc… the American legislative system is BROKEN. And folks like you… you excuse it… you support the dysfunction either via direct action supporting it or by not stepping in to denounce it, to fight it.

* Again, folks… the “Balc’s” of this country are what will bring us down.

BILL
99 MFarmer // Aug 13, 2009 at 10:30 am

They were right — this is the democracy you get when goverment is not limited — when democracy is a greater value than liberty. Democracy works fine within the confines of a limited government, but when you have groups battling for government favor, you’ll have all sorts of strange alliances trying to create the most powerful froup to control everyone else. If government is limited and prevented from handing out favors to one group over another, is prevented from picking winners and losers, you won’t have to suffer this type of democracy, this majoritarianism. But no one gives a damn about limited government, they only want their group in control — the educated group — the redneck group — the progressive group — the religious group. It’s all becoming what libertarians warned against — group warfare, and it will not be pretty, orderly or philosophically enlightening. The country asked for it, we have it.
100 sinz54 // Aug 13, 2009 at 11:45 am

AlexK sez: “I don’t think that it’s anyone’s responsibility to provide health care for anyone else, that health care is not a right, and that it’s not the government’s job to shield people from the inevitable pitfalls of life. Some people naturally have it more difficult than others.”

Well, there you are: Social Darwinism. The poor will get less health care, and thus they will be sicker, and die sooner, than the rich. And over time, that leads to a kind of weeding out the poor by the principle of survival of the fittest. That is the logical outcome of a laissez-faire free-market health care system.

Part of “the American way” has been a basic sense of fairness. It is unfair for some poor fellow who works hard and is striving to get ahead to be struck down by illness through no fault of his own–and be unable to afford treatment.

Not all illnesses are caused by lifestyle choices, you know. Quite a few are genetic in origin, as scientists are now finding out. And contagious germs don’t respect social boundaries. Should you be penalized for having the wrong genes from the wrong parents? Or because a stranger with bird flu accidentally sneezed near you?

That’s why I say that health care reform can and should have substantial private sector involvement. It does NOT have to lead us to single-payer to be successful. BUT there is a legitimate role for government to play in our health care system, precisely because illness is so unfair–and Social Darwinism is abhorrent to most of us Americans.
101 Chekote // Aug 13, 2009 at 11:49 am

To a certain extent, Phil Gramm was correct when he said, “we are a nation of whiners.”

Gramm was dead on with that comment. Unfortunately, the politicians have nurtured the politics of victimhood to win votes. Anyone who stands up and tells the able to quit whining and fix the problem themselves are immediately labeled are cruel. We are in a pickle. I tell ya!
102 sinz54 // Aug 13, 2009 at 11:57 am

balconesfault sez: “There is a basic level of care that we’re better off as a society, more competitive, more ready to respond to serious epidemics, not to mention more just, if we offer to all.”

But for those who are already insured (about 78% of the public), that basic level of care is already provided. Even the most restrictive, highest-deductible policies offer at least catastrophic coverage. The one big issue where you have a point is on the lifetime caps offered by some insurance policies. Some of those caps are low enough that a serious illness like metastatic cancer can exceed the cap and exhaust the coverage within just a few years’ time. So an appropriate role for legislation is to require generous caps, if not to abolish them altogether.

For the currently uninsured, there are a variety of ways to get them catastrophic health care coverage. Some involve the private sector, some involve government action.

You and barker13 and I are in fairly close agreement on what the goals of a national health care policy ought to look like. Where we are far apart is on economics. You sincerely believe that to achieve those goals requires a dominant government role, whereas I believe those goals can be achieved with a much smaller government role.

Given the history of how entitlements that start smaller end up expanding without limit (Medicare, food stamps, AFDC, etc.), we should be very careful about creating huge new entitlements whose cost control provisions, if they exist at all, are vague. Just once, I want to see cost containment made a higher priority than liberal moral imperatives.
103 Chekote // Aug 13, 2009 at 11:57 am

As a society we have an obligation to help those who can’t help themselves. The trick is to do it in such a way so that the truly needy are aided without creating a culture of dependency on the part of the able. Difficult balance. We have made a decision that we are not going to let people die even if they made the wrong choices. This is why I am leaning towards making health care insurance coverage mandatory.
104 sinz54 // Aug 13, 2009 at 12:07 pm

franco-2 asks: “Now to our politicians – have they encouraged debate? No, they have not. ‘

If Obama really wanted a debate, then he wouldn’t have demanded that the health care bill be railroaded through Congress in as little as four months, so he could have signed it by now. Four months on a 1,000 page bill that’s intended to re-organize one of the biggest sectors of U.S. GDP doesn’t leave a lot of time for debate.

If Obama really wanted a debate, he could have asked Mitch McConnell (or some other national Republican figure) to debate health care with him, shown live on prime-time TV, with all the major networks carrying it. Before ever tasking Congress to start work on such a bill.

Bush’s critics had charged that Bush had “rushed to war” in Iraq. Well, in 2002, we got much more of a debate about whether to invade Iraq, then we’ve gotten on health care this year. I recall doves and hawks arguing it back and forth throughout the entire year of 2002. Plus many large, noisy antiwar demonstrations.

If Bush had handled Iraq the way Obama is handling health care, he would have demanded that Congress pass a war resolution in January 2002, and he would have launched the war the very next day–a full year before it actually did take place.
105 sinz54 // Aug 13, 2009 at 12:11 pm

From today’s Gallup poll:

“In a survey of 1,000 adults taken Tuesday, 34% say demonstrations at the hometown sessions have made them more sympathetic to the protesters’ views; 21% say they are less sympathetic. Independents by 2-to-1, 35%-16%, say they are more sympathetic to the protesters now. ”

Consciousness-raising.
The Left invented the term.
But they don’t have a monopoly on it.
106 Chekote // Aug 13, 2009 at 12:20 pm

Sinz

I think the indie numbers indicate that Pelosi’s tactic of calling the protesters “Un-American” backfired.
107 Chekote // Aug 13, 2009 at 12:26 pm

If Obama really wanted a debate, he could have asked Mitch McConnell (or some other national Republican figure) to debate health care with him, shown live on prime-time TV, with all the major networks carrying it.

I don’t believe that Obama is capable of discussing health care in any depth. Once you get him off teleprompter he is not that informed about the issues. If you notice, most of his speeches are about stating the problem and he never explains in detail how his proposals will remedy the problem.
108 balconesfault // Aug 13, 2009 at 1:13 pm

Bill: Balc. Just as we don’t need 1,000+ page bills in the first place… we don’t need bills filled with legalese to the point where they’re almost understandable.

Sadly, yes we do. That is, if you want the details of the bills to be specified by Congress, rather than being wholly decided upon by bureaucrats in agencies throughout Washington DC. Or for the interpretation of the bills to be made by “activist judges” responding to too broad or too vague pieces of legislation that leave themselves open to a myraid of challenges on specific points.

The reason these bills end up with this level of complexity is because they’re dealing with very complex issues, with a lot of competing parties involved, and people want to make sure not only that an agenda is set, but that someone down the line isn’t going to wholly change what they wanted the legislation to accomplish while the Administration is deciding how to implement the bill, or when the judiciary is deciding how to act on specific legal challenges as to whether something the Administration (or some other party) ended up doing was or wasn’t in line with the intent of Congress when drafting the bill.
109 DFL // Aug 13, 2009 at 1:19 pm

For another perspective, I would suggest reading Tom Fleming’s essay over at the Chronicles site.

One thing I find very disturbing about these screamathon town halls is that people who claim to be conservatives have shown themselves to have deplorable manners. Yelling and shouting like children deprived of their ice cream is not something I want conservatism to be affiliated with.
110 balconesfault // Aug 13, 2009 at 1:22 pm

Sinz: Some of those caps are low enough that a serious illness like metastatic cancer can exceed the cap and exhaust the coverage within just a few years’ time. So an appropriate role for legislation is to require generous caps, if not to abolish them altogether.

Here is where the devil is in the details, and we have to understand that laws of unintended consequences work in the private sector, just as you fear them working in the public sector.

If government mandates generous caps, or abolishment of caps, this increases the risk to insurers … and eventually the costs. They will respond to this by raising insurance premiums on everyone.

And since everyone up and down the line in the private insurance market works on a basis of taking a percentage of the payments into the system, government mandating something that raises the insurance premiums on everyone will lead directly to more money for insurance agents, more money for insurance executives, more money in profits to those who invest in insurance companies.

This, once agian, is not intended to demonize those people. They work in private businesses, I work in private businesses. The goal of being in private business is to make as much money as you can, to maximize profits for the company, and to pay the highest returns to investors. Smaller family owned and operated businesses can depart from that model to some extent, but larger public companies pretty much all work that way.

If you feed those companies more money, which your mandates would most certainly do, that will end up meaning more money being spent by healthcare consumers on things other than care. Not as a percentage of dollars spent, granted, but in absolute dollars.

Unless your going to suggest some form of government intrusion into how much they can raise premiums while providing extra coverage, or limiting compensation, or dividends, etc? I hope not – I wouldn’t want to go down that road.
111 balconesfault // Aug 13, 2009 at 1:27 pm

dfl “One thing I find very disturbing about these screamathon town halls is that people who claim to be conservatives have shown themselves to have deplorable manners. Yelling and shouting like children deprived of their ice cream is not something I want conservatism to be affiliated with.”

There are two lines of thinking here – yours, and the line that says “congressmen won’t listen, and the media isn’t going to pay attention, if people just politely ask questions and voice opinions. It takes making a scene.”

I guess there’s something to be said for that – during 8 years the Bush Administration managed to largely be indifferent to any criticism from Republicans or Democrats by strictly screening attendees at any of Bush’s appearances, and setting up “Free Speech Zones” in fenced areas a mile or two from the event.

But that’s not happening here, and the remedy I’d suggest is that protestors wave banners and chant and shout all they want outside the events … but once inside, they commit to the type of manners your mom taught you. And if the Congressman is hosting the event outdoors, you shout all you want until he starts taking questions and responding … at which point you quiet down, allow the participants to have a dialogue … and when it’s all wrapped up, go back to chanting all you want.
112 Chekote // Aug 13, 2009 at 1:31 pm

Balcon

You act like the townhall meeting is the place where policy and proposals are formulated. Not true. The townhall is a place where people can air their greviences. A congressional hearing is the place to study and develop legislation.
113 balconesfault // Aug 13, 2009 at 1:32 pm

Sinz: “Just once, I want to see cost containment made a higher priority than liberal moral imperatives.”

Then you must be having serious heartburn listening to the rants of the “Deathers”, with their claims that any government role in ensuring that people have access to counseling on living wills if they want will lead directly to “Death Tribunals” or “Death Panels”.
114 IndependentGirl // Aug 13, 2009 at 1:48 pm

I majored in Economics and naturally I’m a proponent of free markets controlling things, not the government. However, where healthcare is concerned, there is NO free market. A free market is defined as buyers & sellers coming together unrestricted to exchange goods or services with NO THIRD-PARTY INTERFERENCE. In a free market, there are no insurance companies who are able to, in essence, control both the suppliers of services (doctors) and those who demand the services (patients).

Any argument that “we should let the free market control healthcare” is fundamentally flawed. Personally, I do not want the government being involved in healthcare but it is necessary in this case to reign in the insurance companies. We simply CANNOT allow hardworking Americans (that’s you & me) to be one preexisting condition away from bankruptcy. If you think it cannot happen to you, then you are living with your head in the clouds.

I am a 32-year-old female who takes great care of herself, and I was diagnosed with hypothyroidism (very common in America) a few years ago. Guess what happened: my insurance company considers EVERYTHING a preexisting condition and won’t cover my services. Luckily, I am able to cover the costs involved with checkups, routine exams, etc. However, all it will take is my insurance company not covering a major procedure and I’m bankrupt. It is simply unacceptable in this country to allow insurance companies to run this amok and have this much control over all of our lives (healthcare providers included). There has to be a way for us all to be covered, an option, in case we are dropped by our insurance companies. While it is not the most optimal solution, it is the only feasible solution at our disposal at the present time. If an option is implemented, the government will in effect be providing competition to the insurance companies, and the effect theoretically will be that they will be forced to compete FAIRLY or else go out of business.

Of course, costs are an issue. The problem with this argument as well is the same as what happened with the mortgage crisis. Look at what happens when we wait until everything hits the fan. Just wait until more & more Americans are bankrupt because of their skyrocketing medical costs/insurance companies and ultimately, the government will have to bail them out (that will be the next recession). It can happen to all of us tomorrow. Then the situation will be much worse. Americans (& thus, our government) are very reactionary. Everyone is afraid of any type of change until the bottom falls out, then everyone goes into a panic that we should have done something to prevent this. In this case, we must be proactive in our approach to this problem.
115 txanne // Aug 13, 2009 at 1:54 pm

Sinz: “Just once, I want to see cost containment made a higher priority than liberal moral imperatives.”

Something like this?

“We need to make best practice the minimum practice. Two examples:

More than 20 percent of all Medicare spending occurs in the last two months of life. Gundersen Lutheran Health System in La Crosse, Wisconsin has developed a successful end-of-life, best practice that combines: 1) community-wide advance care planning, where 90 percent of patients have advance directives; 2) hospice and palliative care; and 3) coordination of services through an electronic medical record. The Gundersen approach empowers patients and families to control and direct their care. The Dartmouth Health Atlas has documented that Gundersen delivers care at a 30 percent lower rate than the national average ($18,359 versus $25,860). If Gundersen’s approach was used to care for the approximately 4.5 million Medicare beneficiaries who die every year, Medicare could save more than $33 billion a year”———–NEWT GINGRICH—– JULY 6, 2009

He also went on to say;

“I give President Obama high marks for his recent letter to Sens. Max Baucus and Edward M. Kennedy which noted that health reform must entail more than insurance coverage. He stressed the importance of finding what works and then creating incentives for its widespread adoption. What he needs to do is put specific policies behind his words. ”

Now he agrees with Sarah Palin that this exact same approach that is in HB 3200 is some sort of government run “death panel”?

http://views.washingtonpost.com/healthcarerx/panelists/2009/07/right-gingrich.html
116 sinz54 // Aug 13, 2009 at 3:08 pm

independentgirl sez: “If an option is implemented, the government will in effect be providing competition to the insurance companies, and the effect theoretically will be that they will be forced to compete FAIRLY or else go out of business.”

I’ll repeat my earlier point: A public option that is heavily subsidized through general revenues represents UNFAIR competition, with ARTIFICIALLY low reimbursement rates and premiums.
117 txanne // Aug 13, 2009 at 3:12 pm

sinz54— Do you agree with what Newt Gingrich said in my post above about contolling cost or not?
118 sinz54 // Aug 13, 2009 at 3:19 pm

balconesfault sez: “Then you must be having serious heartburn listening to the rants of the ‘Deathers’”

Not at all.

Because at least they’re sincere, which liberals favoring H.R. 3200 are not. Providing for the doctor to initiate end-of-life counseling every five years, each time financed by the government, is hardly being neutral on the question. The bias in H.R. 3200 is clearly in favor of raising the question with a patient. Even the editor of the Washington Post admitted as much.

Besides, banning euthanasia and assisted suicide are hardly “liberal moral imperatives.” Quite the contrary.

What we’re seeing here is a manifestation of liberal arrogance: If Americans have concerns about a part of the bill, the right answer is to offer to sit down with some of their representatives and try to craft a compromise. Not to just tell them they’re foolish and get out of the way.

Why liberals have to dig in their heels about THIS particular section of H.R. 3200, baffles me. It’s as if it’s a point of pride with them that not one sentence will be changed to accommodate the views of those who sincerely disagree with them. Is this kind of partisanship what Obama meant by “changing the tone in Washington”?
119 sinz54 // Aug 13, 2009 at 3:26 pm

independentgirl sez: “Just wait until more & more Americans are bankrupt because of their skyrocketing medical costs/insurance companies and ultimately, the government will have to bail them out (that will be the next recession).”

Tell me, as a major in economics: How do you figure that spending $1 trillion to give tens of millions of the currently uninsured the same generous coverage that employees of big corporations enjoy, will help control skyrocketing medical costs?

Did they teach you in Economics Class that you control costs by spending more on things you didn’t spend before?

Do you control your household budget by buying more luxuries?
120 ottovbvs // Aug 13, 2009 at 3:28 pm

Chekote // Aug 13, 2009 at 1:31 pm

” The townhall is a place where people can air their greviences.”

…….Yes indeed……”the airing of the grievances”……the reality of course is does anyone for a moment think various assorted nutters screaming at Cardin, McCaskill and Specter is going to make a cents worth of difference to the way they vote…….these meeting’s main consequence seems to be revealing the true nature of today’s Republican party and it’s basic inanity……keep it up guys
121 ottovbvs // Aug 13, 2009 at 3:34 pm

sinz54 // Aug 13, 2009 at 3:26 pm
” How do you figure that spending $1 trillion to give tens of millions of the currently uninsured the same generous coverage that employees of big corporations enjoy, ”

……..Sinz only believes he should qualify for this special treatment……the trillion is spread over ten years…..ie. $100 billion a year……so that’s only a little more each year than we’re spending in Iraq…..meanwhile the national medical bill is growing at about 8% a year and will take us from the current $2.4 trillion a year to $4.3 trillion by 2018/9 an increase of TWO TRILLION A YEAR…..$100 billion is chump change by comparison
122 balconesfault // Aug 13, 2009 at 3:40 pm

sinz: “Why liberals have to dig in their heels about THIS particular section of H.R. 3200, baffles me. “

One is because this kind of reality check really is critical to helping rein in the explosion in healthcare costs. And it is a disservice to the medical profession to talk about such counseling with terms like “euthanasia”.

Second is because keeping discussion of that provision illustrates just how cynical Republicans are on the healthcare issue. This is originally a Republican proposal. It has become evident that Republicans have seized on running it up the flagpole not because they think eliminating it will make for a better healthcare bill … but because they think that shouting about it will be enough to scare many senior citizens into opposing change. Republicans are outright mischaracterizing their own proposal, designed to reduce future spending on entitlements, because they think that the mischaracterizations make a useful wedge.

It will take a few news cycles for this cynicism to really seep through the public consciousness, but as it does, the reality that current Republican leadership has not interest whatsoever in any form of healthcare reform that could allow Obama to fulfill any of his campaign pledges. There is no debate right now, any more than there is a debate when Lucy promises to hold the football for Charlie Brown, and then pulls it away again. We, the readers, realize after a couple episodes that Lucy never intends to act in good faith no matter what she tells Charlie.

The “deather” movement is going to convince a lot of people who have been open to the “we need a bipartisan bill” that there is no possibility of such a bill – that the Republicans could have reformed healthcare any time in the last 8 years, but they had no intention to do so, and at this juncture their only intention is to continue to block it.
123 Spartacus // Aug 13, 2009 at 3:58 pm

Sinz: “But I’m also going to remind YOU that the goal of the American Left is a single-payer system, and the so-called “public option” is their foot in the door toward that end. ”

I’m absolutely sure there are people on the Left that want single-payer, there are others on the Left that want a French or Dutch system. I’ve never denied any of this because there are all kinds of people in this country who want all kinds of things. Obama himself may actually prefer a single-payer systems; I don’t know. However, none of this is the issue.

The issue is what are the merits of the plans that have been proposed in Congress. Most GOP/conservative politicians and commentators have characterized the Dem proposals as leading to a single-payer system. They have also said that a public option cannot fairly compete with private insurers. They are wrong on both counts, and I have provided many, many examples (domestic and foreign) of public options competing with private insurers.

For reasons that have never been articulated, everyone on the Right ignores the real life examples of private insurers thriving alongside public options. Instead, they retreat to textbook theories about how economics work. What these theories all seem to ignore are the legislative restrictions that have been put in place to enable a public/private marketplace.

Basically, quit telling us something can’t be done when we have decades of it being done very successfully both here and abroad. Ideologies and economic theories should never trump empirical evidence.
124 Chekote // Aug 13, 2009 at 3:59 pm

these meeting’s main consequence seems to be revealing the true nature of today’s Republican party and it’s basic inanity……keep it up guys

I sense panic from your part.
125 Spartacus // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:01 pm

Sinz, of course France and the U.S. have had their issues for a very long time, but no one in Congress ever considered changing the name of French Fries until the disagreement over the Iraq war.
126 Chekote // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:05 pm

For reasons that have never been articulated, everyone on the Right ignores the real life examples of private insurers thriving alongside public options.

From a taxpayer and consumer point of view, I don’t like the combo approach because you end up paying twice for healthcare. You pay higher taxes to support the public system and you end up buying private insurance to pay for private clinics in order to avoid the waiting lists. I don’t see this as preferable to what I have now. The are two problems; 1) the uninsured and 2) high costs. We can address these problems without creating a public option.

They have also said that a public option cannot fairly compete with private insurers.

How can it be fair when government has the power to set the rules of the game?
127 ottovbvs // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:07 pm

Chekote // Aug 13, 2009 at 3:59 pm
” I sense panic from your part.”

……..Panic about what?….if you think people behaving like Jackasses assists your case go knock yourselves out I say…..on the whole I’ve found Jackassery tends to weaken rather than strengthen one’s cred but if you think otherwise it’s fine by me…….so go for it Chek
128 Chekote // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:08 pm

but no one in Congress ever considered changing the name of French Fries until the disagreement over the Iraq war.

Why is the Left so obsessed about the “Freedom Fries” incident? Is that they best they can do in attacking the GOP? I rather Congress renames French Fries than Congress passing one huge spending bill after another without any analysis or thought. The latter is much more harmful to the country that naming food items.
129 Spartacus // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:08 pm

Sinz,

After reading your posts on healthcare over the last several months, it seems that you have taken positions that are mutually exclusive.

You want universal coverage (i.e. no Social Darwinisim). You do want cost containment. You don’t want a public option or other government intervention that will control costs. You’ve recommended RomneyCare for the whole nation even though it does not provide cost containment.

I’ve asked you a million times how you get universal coverage and cost containment without a public option or other government intervention and you have never answered the question. Could you please tell us how we can achieve both.
130 txanne // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:09 pm

Sinz54: I am deeply hurt, you totally ignore my question.

I have to surmise from your silence that you believe it is perfectly fine for the private sector to engage this policy, but not ok for government sponsored programs to do the exact same thing.

Another question that probably won’t be answered. Isnt it possible that a moral imperative could also result in lower cost?
131 steelyblades // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:09 pm

Balc, your point at 124 is exactly what I’m afraid of: that this debate is being framed as reform vs. no reform, instead of acknowledging that something has to give and debating what kind of reform would yield the best results. The notion that we should just let things ride the way they are seems pretty absurd to me, but I see a lot of energy being expended in service of that idea.
132 IndependentGirl // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:10 pm

To Sinz54: My my, how we twist things to fit our own arguments (& it goes without saying that you have never taken an economics class). Actually, YES I do spend more to control my budget for the long term. In fact, I pay to go to a Chinese doctor out of my own pocket for PREVENTIVE maintenance so that I won’t have huge costs down the road, both health and financial. So yes, it does make complete sense to invest in preventive measures now so that we won’t have a catastrophe (& spend much more money) down the road. There are short-term gains & there are long-term gains. You are obviously stuck in the short-term & cannot see the forest for the trees. To invest in something now, which will cost us in the short-term, is definitely worth it for the long-term gains.

Costs will come down because the government will be able to negotiate lower prices, just as insurance companies do currently. If my insurance company does not pay for my services, I get charged the enormously inflated rate, which is incidentally the same rate uninsured people are getting charged now & taxpayers are picking up the tab.

A major contributor to costs of course are obesity & the related illnesses associated with it. We do need to focus more on preventive measures, but that is another discussion.
133 Spartacus // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:11 pm

Barker,

It’s unclear to me how any of your proposals control costs, particularly if the government no longer pays for healthcare for seniors. Please explain.
134 ottovbvs // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:11 pm

Chekote // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:05 pm
“How can it be fair when government has the power to set the rules of the game?’

…..So you’d rather private insurers set the rules of the game?…..After all these guys are primarily interested in your welfare……..aren’t they?
135 Chekote // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:15 pm

After all these guys are primarily interested in your welfare……..aren’t they?

And government is? Pleeeease. Elected officials will insert all kinds of provisions to help this or that industry according to campaign contributions. Take a look at what Obama and Dems are doing. They say they want to bring down costs. It has been shown that lawsuits contribute to higher health care costs. Yet, tort reform is not part of the solution being offered by the Dems. Why? Campaign contributions by trial lawyers. Health care decisions will be driven by political considerations. I used to think you were a Lefty. Now I think you are just naive.
136 ottovbvs // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:20 pm

……..When you cut through all the bs from people like Sinz and Chek……the bottom line is we have a free market system that is costing twice as much as anyone else’s; not covering nearly 50 million people; forecast to almost double in cost from $2.4 trillion to $4.3 trillion in the next 8-9 years; is almost entirely dependant on job security so people have been losing insurance at the rate of 14,000 a day for the past year; and making large swathes of US business uncompetitive…….apart from that everythings fine and dandy……and these masterminds want to retain the status quo
137 ottovbvs // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:26 pm

Chekote // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:15 pm
“And government is?Pleeeease.”

……..Tell me the the next time you’re in a hurricane or your house is on fire….

” Yet, tort reform is not part of the solution being offered by the Dems.”

……..Because it’s not material…..total malpractice insurance payments and payouts are less than 1% of total annual healthcare expenditures…..

“I used to think you were a Lefty. Now I think you are just naive.”

………Er….no I can just do cost/benefit analyses
138 Chekote // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:28 pm

the bottom line is we have a free market system that is costing twice as much as anyone else’s;

First of all, I want to know how people are calculating the healthcare costs for other countries. Look at their taxation level vs. ours. Also, we don’t have a free market since government constantly places mandates on insurance companies. We need to increase competition and limit frivolous lawsuits. Drop the strawman. No one is saying that reform is not needed. All that people are protesting is overhauling the whole system for ideological reasons as Obama wants to do.
139 franco 2 // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:29 pm

otto,

…..So you’d rather private insurers set the rules of the game?…..After all these guys are primarily interested in your welfare……..aren’t they?

Spoken like a true lefty. And government still sets the rules of the game, it just doesn’t OWN the game and set the rules too.

No one disputes that people don’t act in their own interests, not even communists. The rub is that the Government is an all powerful entity with little accountability and they can make people do things. If you have a free market, private companies must compete with each other, they have an incentive to attract business. Companies have reputations and they lose money if they don’t provide the services they claim. And in the case of fraudulent behavior we have a legal system that is designed to hold them accountable. (this is where the government comes in, see?)

So what would anyone in their right mind prefer, one plan for everyone run by the government where you have no choice, or many plans to choose from which are directly accountable to consumers?
140 IndependentGirl // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:29 pm

To Chekote:

“From a taxpayer and consumer point of view, I don’t like the combo approach because you end up paying twice for healthcare. You pay higher taxes to support the public system and you end up buying private insurance to pay for private clinics in order to avoid the waiting lists. I don’t see this as preferable to what I have now. The are two problems; 1) the uninsured and 2) high costs. We can address these problems without creating a public option.”

You already pay for healthcare twice. You pay for Medicare, Medicaid as well as Social Security…all of which I’m assuming you don’t use? And you just said “you pay higher taxes”, which is completely speculative at this point. There are savings to be had in many places (the Iraq War is a key example), so by moving things around a bit & cleaning up wasteful spending, the numbers can be crunched so that we won’t have higher taxes. Also, do you make more than $250k/year? If anyone gets taxed more, at least to begin with, it will be the richest Americans. Honestly, I’m fine with that. I’ve made $26k/year & I’ve made $260k/year. It doesn’t hurt badly at all to pay a little more taxes on the higher end for the greater good.

“How can it be fair when government has the power to set the rules of the game?”

If you’ve actually read the bill, you will see that it reads just like any insurance underwriting, with a few exceptions (you can’t be dropped for preexisting conditions, etc.). So if it were to go through today, it would force insurance companies to compete fairly, because what they have been doing for many years now is cornering the market – in essence they’ve created an oligopoly – where they control supply and demand. The downfall to capitalism is excessive greed, and insurance companies are exhibit A as to the worst case scenario. Sometimes it is necessary to force people to compete fairly, which is where the government comes in.
141 Chekote // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:33 pm

……..Tell me the the next time you’re in a hurricane or your house is on fire….

Actually, when I lived in Long Island the fire the department was staffed with volunteers. This idea that people would just lay around helpless unless government does it is a nonstarter. During Katrina, the best at delivering aid was Walmart and FedEx.

Because it’s not material…..total malpractice insurance payments and payouts are less than 1% of total annual healthcare expenditures…..

Did you figure the costs of all the extra tests the doctors order in the name of defensive medicine in your cost analysis?

Okay Otto. I am game. How will Obama’s reforms lower costs and take care of the uninsured? I promise I will keep an open mind which is more that you usually do.
142 IndependentGirl // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:41 pm

Again to Chekote: “First of all, I want to know how people are calculating the healthcare costs for other countries. Look at their taxation level vs. ours. Also, we don’t have a free market since government constantly places mandates on insurance companies. We need to increase competition and limit frivolous lawsuits. Drop the strawman. No one is saying that reform is not needed. All that people are protesting is overhauling the whole system for ideological reasons as Obama wants to do.”

Yes, let’s look at their taxation vs. ours. In fact, it’s not that much different, especially when you consider all the extra stuff they get in return. Most get longer paid maternity leaves (some are quite substantial), longer time periods for family (acts similar to our FMLA), longer vacation times, etc. I’d have no problem paying more taxes to get more benefits.

Finally, your statement about why we don’t have a free market is completely false. We have mandates put on insurance companies (& other industries) to force them to compete fairly & keep them from oligopolizing the market, but they have succeeded in doing so anyway. They control supply and demand. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with government mandates. Read my previous statement for why that is the case.
143 ottovbvs // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:45 pm

franco-2 // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:29 pm
“So what would anyone in their right mind prefer, one plan for everyone run by the government where you have no choice, or many plans to choose from which are directly accountable to consumers?”

………I love your naivete Franco…..do you really think the health insurance companies are “directly accountable to consumers” in any substantive way whatever……..most private insurance is bought by companies for their employees and I can tell you from the personal experience of buying, or at least signing off on, the purchase of nearly $25 million of health insurance that the leverage is slight at best……and as for the individual just going out and trying to find insurance assuming they are healthy (god help them it they are not), pay for it, and then wrestle with the insurance company over disputes, it’s awful……these companies are quasi monopolies (they are essentially cartels)…..the “consumer” even when spending millions is largely at their mercy
144 ottovbvs // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:47 pm

Chekote // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:33 pm

“Actually, when I lived in Long Island the fire the department was staffed with volunteers.”

……..Chek… even with small town fire houses most of the money comes from the town budget not those christmas tree sales…..if it’s urban its entirely professional
145 Chekote // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:48 pm

independentgirl

It is amazing to me how people have convinced themselves that the savings from the Iraq War will be enough to pay for EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN! BTW, why are we still in Iraq?

It doesn’t hurt badly at all to pay a little more taxes on the higher end for the greater good.

Who gets to define “greater good”?

Medicare is going broke. Obama wants to expand this program to cover millions more. Where is the money coming from? In terms of taxation, even with Medicare and SS included. Our taxation is less than most European countries.
146 Chekote // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:50 pm

Otto

I have no problem paying taxes to support common services like fire department, police, defense, infrastructure, etc. However, you seem to think that it is either all government or no government. How about limited government?
147 Chekote // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:54 pm

Most get longer paid maternity leaves (some are quite substantial), longer time periods for family (acts similar to our FMLA), longer vacation times, etc. I’d have no problem paying more taxes to get more benefits.

That’s your choice. And if you want to pay higher premiums to get extra benefits, I am okay with that. But maybe I want shorter maternity leaves. Or better yet, I don’t want kids so I don’t need them. Why should I have to pay extra taxes? Why not devise a system where people who want more benefits pay more. We are not French. We are a big country with very diverse needs, wants, lifestyles. This one size fits all approach that you push is ….. well, un-American.
148 Chekote // Aug 13, 2009 at 5:00 pm

The downfall to capitalism is excessive greed, and insurance companies are exhibit A as to the worst case scenario.

They way you curb excessive greed is by opening up competition. Government can lower the barriers to entry into the market so that insurance companies that have a reputation of refusing to pay for treatment will lose customers. Politicians can be bought off. Insurance companies know this and act accordingly. Push for competition. It works.
149 Chekote // Aug 13, 2009 at 5:09 pm

Otto, Independent Girl

Still that that government is looking out for your interest? Check this out from the Huffington Post no less:

Internal Memo Confirms Big Giveaways In White House Deal With Big Pharma

It says the White House agreed to oppose any congressional efforts to use the government’s leverage to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada — and also agreed not to pursue Medicare rebates or shift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Medicare Part D, which would cost Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements.

In exchange, the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) agreed to cut $80 billion in projected costs to taxpayers and senior citizens over ten years. Or, as the memo says: “Commitment of up to $80 billion, but not more than $80 billion.”

And how many more deals with be made in the future?
150 ottovbvs // Aug 13, 2009 at 5:16 pm

Chekote // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:33 pm
” Okay Otto. I am game. How will Obama’s reforms lower costs and take care of the uninsured? I promise I will keep an open mind which is more that you usually do.”

……..That’s a hell of a big question which would probably take a 1000 pages to answer but I’ll try and give a conceptual answer recognizing that this is a zero sum game so there will be winners and losers …….To start with the the trillion is bs ……100 million a year to bring us up to 95% coverage seems cheap to me…..in fact it probably is cheap and will likely end up costing twice that ……so we’ve got everyone covered effectively now how do we squeeze cost out of the system?…..look at the main cost centers starting with the private insurers(who are perceived as the major villains although they are not the biggest cost centers) …..they provide about 46% of of total expenditures or $1.1 trillion and spend 18-40% of receipts on admin/profit (depending on whose numbers you believe) so lets call it 20% for simplicity or $220 billion…..they’re going to have to live on 10% which will cause massive consolidation over time but they will survive and remain a major force in the industry bu a smaller margin business ……so now where’s the real money……it’s in the provision of care…..If I take out the the govt and private admin it’s where 75% of the cost (that’s about $1.8 trillion) is located……In a sentence: doctors, hospitals, and drug companies are going to make less money…..since we’re paying the drug industry roughly 2.5x what they’re paying in Europe there’s some margin to surrender…..as against that they’ll see some more volume…..at the end of the day the fact we’re paying too much for healthcare is not a factor of govt involvement…..it’s a very profitable business which is why pharma and healthcare appliance companies are consistently the second and third most profitable business sectors…..If you want a healthcare system that costs as much as the best in the peer group say France or Sweden they spend about 9 or 10% of GDP that means in constant dollars it has to come down to $1.4 trillion and that’s the bottom line…..otherwise we look at remorseless increases untill it get to 20%+ of GDP.
151 IndependentGirl // Aug 13, 2009 at 5:21 pm

Chekote – If you truly wanted competition, you would want the government to enter the market. Yes, competition works, but the so-called “barriers to entry” as you put it do not exist. I can start an insurance company tomorrow if I want. That is simply not the problem. The TRUE barrier to entry in the health insurance market is the oligopoly that the big companies have created. Small companies are being pushed out of the market or taken over by the giants. In fact, it’s not just happening in the insurance industry, it’s happening to some degree in every industry. How does that equal more competition?

I just stated that we pay slightly less taxes than the European countries. What part of that did you not understand?

As far as the deals go, yes plenty more will be made. Are you aware of how our political system works? In order to pass a bill, you need votes & support.
152 ottovbvs // Aug 13, 2009 at 5:26 pm

Chekote // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:50 pm

“How about limited government?”

……..Chek my son….are you kidding…..the Federal budget is something over $3 trillion….add in another trillion or so for state budgets and we have total govt expenditures around $4.5 trillion which is by a factor of several times greater than govt expenditures in any other sovereign state in the world. I know there are per capita bigger one’s but sometimes sheer volume counts……limited govt is a complete mirage……because the minute you start taking the goodies away from a lot of those idiots protesting at townhalls they are the first to scream……there is never again going to be “limited govt” the issue is how do you run the govt and fund the social contract in the most efficient and cost effective way.
153 IndependentGirl // Aug 13, 2009 at 5:26 pm

…Actually, let me expand on my last statement: Are you aware of how BUSINESS works? You strike deals by making compromises. I’ll do something for you if you do something for me. That’s the definition of capitalism, which you’re now opposed to?
154 ottovbvs // Aug 13, 2009 at 5:35 pm

independentgirl // Aug 13, 2009 at 5:21 pm

” but the so-called “barriers to entry” as you put it do not exist. I can start an insurance company tomorrow if I want. ”

………Actually they do…..in capital, organizational, competitive and regulatory terms there are effectively insurmountable barriers to entry…..no one is going to start a health insurance business on any scale……as you say the insurance companies are an oligopoly (I actually think they constitute a de facto cartel although you could argue about that)…..in fact in many state markets it’s almost a monopoly with one or two companies being the only real players.
155 IndependentGirl // Aug 13, 2009 at 5:38 pm

Chekote: “It has been shown that lawsuits contribute to higher health care costs. Yet, tort reform is not part of the solution being offered by the Dems.”

First of all, why would you put that in a health care bill? They are not one & the same. They are two totally different animals. Actually while Obama was a Senator, he voted pro-tort reform on acts. That is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue. Congress has been mixed all along as to who wants it & who doesn’t.
156 IndependentGirl // Aug 13, 2009 at 5:46 pm

Ottovbvs: Yes, of course there are different terms but there are ways to start a health insurance business. The regulations that are out there are not the problem. The bigger issue is why WOULD I start one when the industry is the way it is? It certainly wouldn’t make good financial sense to do it, but there is nothing major to keep me from actually entering the market.
157 ottovbvs // Aug 13, 2009 at 6:12 pm

independentgirl // Aug 13, 2009 at 5:46 pm

……….If you don’t think the existence of an oligopoly sitting in a market doesn’t constitute an essentially impassable barrier to entry particularly for a product that is to a large extent a commodity you might want to revisit the text books…….no one is going to start a major health insurance company for godsake…..you’d buy one!…..If it was easy to enter from a startup there are lots of reasons why you would try because it’s a relatively low risk cash cow……..I know some major industrial companies have tried setting up their own captive operations but most have ultimately exited I understand………. I don’t disagree with the thrust of a lot of your comments but you’re wrong on this narrow issue I fear
158 IndependentGirl // Aug 13, 2009 at 6:21 pm

Ottovbvs – You missed my point. My original statement was just to state that the government regulations do not constitute the barriers to entry or lack of competition. I agree with what you’re saying wholeheartedly. I was simply speaking to Chekote’s statement that “Government can lower the barriers to entry into the market so that insurance companies that have a reputation of refusing to pay for treatment will lose customers.”

In other words, the government regulations aren’t the problem (& thus, simply lessening the regulations will NOT be a solution)…having an oligopoly is!
159 brutus1791 // Aug 13, 2009 at 6:41 pm

Barker13:
You’re young. We have another young guy who posts here – he goes by the handle Brutus. I’ve read plenty of your stuff… I’ve read plenty of his… he’d wipe the floor with you.

Bill, I must thank you for the vote of confidence. Sadly, I feel as though should myself and Alex had crossed paths across from HCC at, say, Maloo’s for beers, we might have agreed on a fair number of points. That being said, I was there in a more official capacity and am obliged to refrain from addressing Senator Cardin’s town hall as it pertains to my humble abode. Nevertheless, a glass on me, of a good single-barrel bourbon whenever the opportunity should present itself! Also, did the soundtrack for ‘Les Miserables’ come to mind for anyone else when reading this

Once again, I find myself “sorry to be tardy to the party.” I am just not going to be able to address the myriad directions this thread has progressed, so hopefully my comments on the initial piece will indirectly address some of the other side conversations.

Alex: When reading your first paragraph, I had to laugh. I get it. Leo Strauss used to have a term, “reducto ad Hitlerum” which has been common-place in politics on both sides since World War II. People have been going over-board with the Nazi and Hitler references; but there are some aspects of their argument which ring true, and we have to at least acknowledge their points. Wiemar was a liberal republic, and when they faced stressful economic downturns (lightly put) and a culture that was open to everything, including the very ideas that lead to the ultimate destruction of Germany, they turned to a figure who seemed to transcend the moment. Eh, deja vu for some. I have an Oma who lived through WWII in Berlin, she is the most vociferous advocate of standing up against people who loosely throw around “Fourth Reich” and Hitler and whatever the LaRouchites, Alex Jones’, and Tex Marrs like to say. But hell, even she admits to seeing similarities. I always liked this quote, “You know who gave Hitler his power? The clerks and the bookkeepers, the civil servants. I have this one weakness: I believe in a just God. I always seem to err on the side of democracy.” –Bill Sullivan, The Good Shepherd. We’ll leave the “God” part out for your consideration I suppose. Funny enough, I have been accosted at the MVA by LaRouchites as well. They are just hateful people, and I fall more into the NeoCon(which I am not)/Masonic/Jewish/P2Lodge/Catholic Cabal than a libertarian atheist would. But they are people. And Americans at that. I found it ironic, for the most part, that you abhor these people (name-calling aside) for being close minded while demonstrating that you are close-minded to their culture and pleas. NOW, I am no apologist for the bourgeois, but being raised as I was, I still respected my fellow countrymen. Not everyone is made to be a philosopher-king, but you cannot call yourself a philosopher-king by comparing yourself to those you already look down on.

The second point to be made, is that of your being “an elitist.” I have to agree with Barker here, it seems odd for one to have to call himself an ‘elitist,’ allowing their actions to convey that point instead. It does come across as something that a faux-elitist would do, as if trying to fit into a high-school clique. Responding to a post “Um. Well, I know what happened, and I reported it accurately, so, um…yeah.” Does not strike me as very elite. I laughed actually, because my 17y/o brother writes out “um” when he types as well. I figure that the elitist thing to do would be to write your contributions, sit back and let the nugatory peons post and comment, and take with a grain of salt. I do not need to remind people “I am a Cowboys Fan” because when I wear my jersey, and hat, and root for them, and name all of the starters (from the mid-90s team) I hope that my actions speak for themselves. I am surprised to find you down here in the trenches getting your Class A’s covered. Besides, what exactly makes you an elitist? In what sense? Smarter than they? Richer than they? More virtuous than they? (Aristotle addresses the claims to rule and can fit with your claim as a member of an elite).

Do I agree with some of your points? Yes. Is there something romantic about the collective wisdom of our republic? Yes as well. Ultimately, popular sovereignty and the likes are proven to lead to the prolonging (or in Germany’s instance, initiation) of what is truly unjust. A great dialogue regarding elitism versus populism; Willmoore Kendall v. Leo Strauss (http://www.nhinet.org/havers18-1&2.pdf) is out there for consumption. In the end I wondered what exactly this article added to a debate, or how was this expected to bring the more populist-minded to our side? If we want the people to pick the natural aristocracy to send to the bowls of DC, perhaps we should stop giving them reasons to hate ‘elitists’ right? Tocqueville didn’t crap on the Average Americans, he kindly observed. You observed, just missed the old adage “you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.”
160 balconesfault // Aug 13, 2009 at 7:12 pm

Umm … one can be an elitist in today’s political parlance simply by believing that government runs best when run by highly trained, highly educated people … and by believing that “inside the beltway” isn’t a perjorative. It’s not like calling yourself a member of the elite – which is properly an attribute bestowed upon you, and not claimed for oneself.

So you could actually be an elitist without being a member of the elite (or even having a functional definition of elitist). Just as one can be a Dallas Cowboys fan without actually being a Dallas Cowboy. In other words, you too could be elitist, Brutus!
161 barker13 // Aug 14, 2009 at 10:40 am

Re: Balconesfault // Aug 13, 2009 at 1:13 pm (#110) –

* First of all… JEEZUS… I take an afternoon and evening off and when I come back there are four or five new threads and dozens and dozens of new comments! (*GRIN*) Wow!

OK… now to your comments, Balc…

“…if you want the details of the bills to be specified by Congress, rather than being wholly decided upon by bureaucrats in agencies throughout Washington DC.”

You’re contradicting yourself again, Balc. (*CHUCKLE*)

First you say it’s ok that the Members of the House and Senate aren’t reading the bills they’re voting for or against because their AIDES are reading the bills and giving them the short version…

(*SMIRK*)

…but now you’re the champion of Congressional perogatives… yet Congress has outsourced these perogatives to unelected staff… so…???

(*GRIN*)

Anyway, Balc, I’ll stick with my original comments #90 and #99 as far as this matter goes.

Again, Balc, basically what you’re doing is defending individual legislator’s refusal to do their jobs. I consider you part of the problem, not part of the solution. It’s not personal… I’m just calling it as I see it.

As I’ve written previously, we need some sort of “reasonable standard” for legislation creation. This standard must be based upon a reasonable expectation of what the average educated American can take in and understand – both sheer size as well as basic “readability.”

I’d say we start with the original Constitution itself. Have the appropriate English language experts “assign” it a “comprehension” value. (Say 12 grade readability… perhaps college graduate readability… hell, the way standards are today perhaps even grad school grad readability) and then you factor in sheer size… number of words. How many words… how many pages… should be considered a line in the sand that a single piece of legislation can’t cross… how many pages (words) are “the max” in terms of expecting the average educated American to be able to follow in such a way as the law is clearly understandable.

Well… you come up with standards like that and you stick to them. No more 1,000+ page bills that no elected official (ok, almost none… how’s that?) has actually READ prior to voting to make it a LAW.

Are we talking limiting bills to the size of the original Constitution? Perhaps. Two times… three times… four times the length (number of word) of the original Constitution? Perhaps. The size of the longest Supreme Court majority Decision…? OK. Perhaps that would be the max…

(*SHRUG*)

Anyway, I’m getting my point across. You disagree, Balc. Fine. Again… I believe people like you – the enablers of the situation we’ve got here in America 2009 – are the problem, not the solution, as relates to out of control and largely incompetent and unresponsive government.

BILL
162 barker13 // Aug 14, 2009 at 10:58 am

Re: Independentgirl // Aug 13, 2009 at 1:48 pm (#116) –

“I majored in Economics…”

(*GRIN*) Yeah… so did Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke! Somehow this doesn’t allay my concerns.

(*WINK*) (BTW, the snark is directed at the idiots who got us in this mess, not you, IG!) (*SMILE*)

Anyway… with regard to your post…

(*SIGH*)

Round and round and round we go…

More posts… more threads… same comments… same rebuttals…

(*HEADACHE*)

I don’t know how many of my posts you’ve read over the months, but to reiterate, I’m for true catastrophic insurance with a social safety net.

What this means is that EVERYONE pays for insurance – catastrophic insurance – ideally aligned with an HSA/MSA.

EVERYONE pays from birth on… children covered by their parents.

EVERYONE pays for their own day to day medical care and EVERYONE pays for their own “bumps in the road” UP TO THE POINT where catastrophic insurance kicks in.

Once catastrophic care kicks in YOU ARE TREATED. You are treated with no copays, with no additional medical bills.

IF we’re talking an ongoing condition that is going to put you in catastrophic territory (in terms of costs) year after year then you’ll be expected to keep on kicking in X% of your income year to year as your share of your treatment.

IF you can’t work… then that’s where the social safety net comes in.

This is a CONCEPT. I’m not trying to dot all the “i” and cross all the “t” – I’m simply advancing the two-fold argument that we must expect our medical care throughout our lifetimes from year to year, good year, bad year, in between year, to be our own individual responsibility in the same way food, shelter, clothing, and fine single malt scotch are individual responsibilities. At the same time, we must have a catastrophic system ready to kick in so that Americans aren’t left bankrupt and broken (socially) by catastrophic medical expenses. At the same time we must ensure that the actuarial math “works” to the best extent possible so that we’re not talking income simply income redistribution.

Am I making the “concept” clear…???

Now whoever disagrees with the CONCEPT… speak up!

(*SMILE*)

BILL
163 barker13 // Aug 14, 2009 at 11:39 am

txanne // Aug 13, 2009 at 1:54 pm (#117) –

http://www.healthtransformation.net/

Just so we’re all reading off the same page… (*WINK*)

Re: Sinz54 // Aug 13, 2009 at 3:08 pm (#118) –

“A public option that is heavily subsidized through general revenues represents UNFAIR competition, with ARTIFICIALLY low reimbursement rates and premiums.”

EXACTLY! (*POLITE APPLAUSE*)

Re: Spartacus // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:11 pm (#135) –

“It’s unclear to me how any of your proposals control costs…”

That’s because they don’t – not initially. (*SMILE*)

(And no… beyond “initially” I haven’t really fleshed out any argument about costs longterm – which is probably why you’re unclear.) (*GRIN*)

No, Spart… my arguments mainly deal with my conceptions of “fairness” and try to deal with the reality that life ISN’T fair. (*SHRUG*)

See… there’s a natural tension there. I acknowledge that! This is why I keep reiterating that there has to be some social safety net and that ultimately there’s no one beside government to ultimately guarantee “payment” since only government can simply print money at will.

(True… not my idea of the ideal “plan b,” but I’m just acknowledging reality.)

Of course I believe personal responsibility would lead to more prudent expenditures and more “warning bumps” when pricing is obviously skewed and everyone is noticing the same skew… but again… you’re correct… price control is a secondary vision to “fairness” as I see it in how we view healthcare and how we few personal freedoms and responsibilities.

Thanks for bringing this up btw – I do appreciate the question. I hope you take my “answer” such as it is at face value. Again… I’m not trying to duck the “cost containment” issue but to me “cost containment” is a secondary matter. (And yes… I know many – perhaps most – will disagree with me; I’m simply outlining my reasoning and my priorities.)

BILL
164 barker13 // Aug 14, 2009 at 12:11 pm

Re: Brutus1791 // Aug 13, 2009 at 6:41 pm (#161) –

“Bill, I must thank you for the vote of confidence. Sadly, I feel as though should myself and Alex had crossed paths across from HCC at, say, Maloo’s for beers, we might have agreed on a fair number of points.”

1) You’re welcome. (*WINK*)

2) Oh… Alex isn’t totally off base; he’s actually mainly “on base.” It’s just some specifics and some “tonal” issues that I have problems with re his initial post and some of his follow-ups.

You know, me, Brutus… I’m a very focused, specific guy and that’s the prism through whic I read and reply to others’ writings.

“In the end I wondered what exactly this article added to a debate, or how was this expected to bring the more populist-minded to our side?”

(*SMILE*) Exactly.

* Now… working backwards… RE: IndependentGirl just in general…

Yes. Most of us (all of us?) (*CROSSING MY FINGERS*) believe in the benefits of competition.

Still… when you talk about government engaging in “competition” with private citizens and entities you’re not talking an even playing field. Not nearly! We’ve (the group here at NM) gone over this again and again and again… no need to reinvent the wheel with every other post.

(*WINK*)

That said… in line with many of your points and in line with Spart’s #135 post question to me let me just throw something out for consideration and comment:

Do you possess an actual “apples vs. apples” comparison of costs associated with American “governmental” medicine vs. the private sector?

I’m thinking along these lines…

A military hospital… a VA hospital – either/or vs. a private hospital.

I’m talking as if we could model number of doctors vs. number of doctors… number of nurses, aides, technicians, support staff, the whole shebang government owned/run vs. privately owned and run.

Same number of gadgets… same equipment… same patient load… same outcomes…

(You’re getting the picture, right…???)

Now… two things I’d want to know:

1) What are actual costs.

2) What are actual results.

Now unless I’m misreading your attitude and beliefs, it comes across to me as if you’re absolutely certain that an “apples to apples” comparison would lead to some huge “government win” in terms of FAR lower costs while retaining (or perhaps even advancing!) patient outcomes.

I don’t believe this would be the case.

(*SHRUG*)

Hey… maybe I’m wrong! But shouldn’t we start out by really digging into the numbers…??? Shouldn’t we compare “apples to apples” as opposed to broad cross-cultural, transnational comparisons that are even at their best more “apple to orange” comparisons?

I have a buddy who’s a doc. He’s worked for the VA Hospital system. The pay there kinda sucks… for a doctor that is… but the hours were good. He left the VA system a while back and has been bumming around deciding his next career move. Well, he just got hired by “the government,” a branch of the military. He’s gonna be working on a military base here Stateside.

Now the reason I put “the government” in quotes is because he’s actually being brought on as a contract employee. He’s technically employed by some private firm that specializes in providing contract medical personnel pursuant to government contract. For a one year contract he’s getting a $15K sign-on bonus and initial year salary of $225K.

Again… he’s the contractor… the firm technically employing him is obviously making a profit from the government to provide the staffing service.

My point… (*SHRUG*)… from everything I know about government, if you’re looking for relatively inexpensive “action/achievement,” government ain’t exactly the first place to look.

(*SHRUG*)

Anyway… just a point to ponder.

BILL
165 ottovbvs // Aug 14, 2009 at 12:45 pm

independentgirl // Aug 13, 2009 at 6:21 pm
“In other words, the government regulations aren’t the problem (& thus, simply lessening the regulations will NOT be a solution)…having an oligopoly is!”

………..We’re basically agreed……Regs are way down the totem poll in barriers to entry……I do understand you know what you’re talking about…..sorry if I conveyed any contrary impression
166 Spartacus // Aug 14, 2009 at 1:33 pm

Barker:

“It’s unclear to me how any of your proposals control costs…” – “That’s because they don’t – not initially. (*SMILE*) (And no… beyond “initially” I haven’t really fleshed out any argument about costs longterm – which is probably why you’re unclear.) (*GRIN*)”

No matter how much I disagree with you (which is an awful lot), I always appreciate your intellectual honesty.

As I’ve said before, I don’t favor a public option (or similar govt intervention) out of ideology. I favor it because it’s the only method I’m aware of that has demonstrated its ability to contain costs on a wide-scale, sustainable basis. I think universal coverage is imperative, but completely unachievable without cost containment. The two are equally important and you can’t do one without doing the other.

This is why I’ve always argued that healthcare reform simply reflects different values between conservatives/GOPers and Dems. It seems that if you really believe, as Dems do, that universal coverage is important, then you have to have a meaningful way of containing costs, which is why the public option is necessary. On the other hand, if you believe, as conservatives/GOPers do, that universal coverage is important, but not worth govt intervention or additional govt spending, then you will oppose the kinds of reform that will result in meaningful cost containment not because you’re opposed to cost containment per se, but because you’re opposed to the only proven methods of cost containment.

Until this country adopts Social Darwinism, it has to come up with a meaningful way of containing costs. You can’t avoid both Social Darwinism and cost containment.
167 barker13 // Aug 14, 2009 at 4:35 pm

Re: Spartacus // Aug 14, 2009 at 1:33 pm (#168)

“No matter how much I disagree with you (which is an awful lot), I always appreciate your intellectual honesty.”

(*SMILE*) Thanks. Next time you’re visiting or traveling through New York’s beautiful lower/mid Hudson Valley give me a shout – I’ll stand you a beer!

“As I’ve said before, I don’t favor a public option (or similar govt intervention) out of ideology. I favor it because it’s the only method I’m aware of that has demonstrated its ability to contain costs on a wide-scale, sustainable basis.”

But this whole “demonstrated ability to contain costs” is what I worry about. HOW will costs be controlled? It seems to me you’ve either got to limit care across the board generally to get across the board in general saving, or, you save money by telling everyone connected in any way to medical administration/care, “hey… the good news is you’ve still got a job – most of you that is – the bad news… we’re gonna be slashing pay something awful.”

(*SHRUG*)

I just don’t see any way around that.

And again… while doctors earn damn good incomes and in the abstract one might say “sure, they can afford to take a haircut,” what will this do to our system over time; will it mean fewer doctors… fewer of the BEST doctors the capitalist system creates…???

(And, yeah… no doubt other systems create great doctors… but there’s a reason the rich and powerful from around the world more often end here than anywhere else when the $hit hits the fan with regard to their health. Just in case I ever develop a “House” disease… I wanna know “House” is still practicing.) (*SMILE*)

You and me need to keep on chatting, Spart! (*GRIN*) Between us we’ll “solve” the problem. (*WINK*)

BILL
168 CJ75 // Aug 16, 2009 at 12:42 pm

Mr. Alex Knepper,

You are one elitist fool. Rednecks, hicks? are you serious?

Why don’t you open up a history book and find out about the screaming matches that went on between our Founding Fathers?

Why don’t you open up a history book and find out about the screaming matches that went on while the Articles of Confederation were the law of the land? Why do you think the States decided that they needed something better than the Articles of Confederation? Do think America’s ancestors sat around talking nicely to each other during the birth of our Nation drinking lattes?

Open up an American history book and learn something about the great protests that went on.

What you are seeing is democracy at work.

By your article and your posts, it is obvious that you believe that only an elitist group should make decision for us, the idiots. No different than what most Liberals think, people are too stupid to make their own decisions. They need to be led by the best and the brightest.

The saddest part is that you are not ashamed of what an incredible poorly informed snub you are. You are actually proud of it.

I find you uncouth and poorly educated.

By the way, maybe you can answer? Where were you, David Frum and the rest of the fake Conservatives on this site who said nothing, who sat idly by when left-wingers were disrupting Republican town hall meetings during the past 8 years, eh? And please don’t make me school you on this historical fact!

You went with a preconceived notion of who these people at the town hall meetings were and you fulfilled your own prophecy. You are as closed minded as any Liberal that I have ever come across.
169 ottovbvs // Aug 16, 2009 at 5:43 pm

cj75 // Aug 16, 2009 at 12:42 pm
“I find you uncouth and poorly educated. ”

……..So now you know Alex……someone who has wandered of the Redstate reservation considers you etc etc…..I’m sure you’ll learn to live with it
170 Spartacus // Aug 17, 2009 at 2:39 am

barker13 // Aug 14, 2009 at 4:35 pm: “Next time you’re visiting or traveling through New York’s beautiful lower/mid Hudson Valley give me a shout – I’ll stand you a beer!”

Hey, thanks, Barker. Of course, being a Left Coast Liberal, I would prefer a latte instead of a beer!
171 barker13 // Aug 17, 2009 at 9:31 am

Re: Spartacus // Aug 17, 2009 at 2:39 am (#172) –

“…being a Left Coast Liberal, I would prefer a latte instead of a beer!”

(*SHUDDER*)

OK. How’s this… either a glass of wine or a double espresso?

(I’m trying to work with you, here, Spart!)

BILL
172 Spartacus // Aug 17, 2009 at 1:24 pm

barker13 // Aug 17, 2009 at 9:31 am

“I’m trying to work with you, here, Spart!”

I know you are; my comment was for your entertainment:)
173 SteveShives // Aug 17, 2009 at 5:12 pm

Alex (and cj75), as someone who has lived in the Hagerstown area (where this Cardin town hall took place) all of my life, let me say with some sadness and embarassment that “an array of overfed hicks” comes as close to Hagerstown in a nutshell as anything could. I almost got out to this one (I live in Sharpsburg now, close to where I attend school, and actually used to take classes at the community college where the town hall was held), but decided a two-hour wait for a one-hour event wasn’t worth it. I’m glad I stayed home. Judging from the reporting and videos I’ve seen of the event, I likely would have spent most of the hour slumped in my chair with my hands covering my face.

Good on the lady who told the child, “this isn’t what democracy is all about.” I only wish she were right. This summer, it seems like demagoguery, pandering histrionics, and outright lying are all democracy is about.

But what the hell else is new, right?

You must log in to post a comment.

search FF

stay connected

What I Saw at the Town Hall

August 12th, 2009 at 4:44 pm by Alex Knepper | 173 Comments |

Recent Posts by Alex Knepper

173 responses so far

Hayworth Closes in on McCain

Let’s Get Hannitized

CIA Outraged Over Outing of Agents

Conversations with a Serial Killer

Campbell: U.S. Should Back Israel Strike On Iran

frumscrum

frumscrum

Frum on CNN: Peace Process Prolongs Mideast War

Frum in the National Post: Shame and Anger from York Alumni

Frum in The Week: Is Middle East Peace Even Possible?

Frum on Marketplace: Can Obama Dispel Clouds of Trade War?

More frumscrum

FRENCH CONSIDER LIFTING BROTHEL BAN

WATCH: ANDERSON COOPER ON JEOPARDY

WATCH: COLBERT ON THE THREAT OF 'TERRORIST' DOGS

REPORT: PALIN CLOSE TO DEAL FOR REALITY SHOW

WATCH: STEWART PARODIES GLENN BECK

SANFORD PAYS $74K TO SETTLE ETHICS CHARGES

WATCH: WARREN BUFFETT PLAYS AXL ROSE IN GEICO AD

PANTSLESS CARLA BRUNI PIC TO BE AUCTIONED

ELIZABETH EDWARDS "DISGUSTED" BY RIELLE'S RACY GQ PHOTOS

MADOFF GETS PRISON BEATDOWN

books by friends

comeback

ff in the news

FF in the news

join in the forum

shop frumforum

advertise