Thursday, October 1, 2009
What I've Been Up To
I know... I know... I've been neglecting the blogging. Sorry about that!
Truth be told, I've been kind of busy with the radio show.
For those who don't know, I do an hour of noontime (till 1:00 p.m.) radio with my buddy (and mentor) John Hicks every Tuesday on WTBQ, which can be found on the AM Dial throughout Orange County, NY and Northwestern NJ at 1110 and the FM Dial at 99.1 in the Town of Warwick, NY and the surrounding area. For those of you interested in checking the show out via internet, go for it! Let me know what you think. Heck... feel free to call in and speak to me live between noon and 1:00 p.m. on Tuesdays via 845-651-1110.
Anyway... I'm going to cut this post short and as is my wont I'm going to use the thread's comments section to post some details concerning the topics we've been talking about on the radio show during the past couple weeks.
Rather than using this main post to cover a variety of topics I'm simply going to post some of my radio show notes - topic shorthand, facts and figures - on the comments page. Read 'em and weep, folks!
Oh... and if any of you have any "off-topic" comments... feel free to use the comments section of this thread for those.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
70 comments:
Notes from our 9-22-09 Radio Show --
Back when I was a kid, 65 was the passing grade - pathetic... but a passing grade. Today, in NYS, 44 is the new passing grade - at least as far as this year’s seventh grade NYS math test graders are concerned. And even with “passing” grade of 44... 16% of students statewide failed the test!
=====
In 2007, only 57 percent of fourth graders in New York City and 44 percent of fourth graders in Chicago could claim even basic literacy according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Yet, in the same year, less than 2 percent of New York’s teachers and less than 1 percent of Chicago’s teachers were deemed “unsatisfactory” in their official evaluations. Clearly, something is missing here.
BILL
* Continuing... from 9/22 --
The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year. And you know how we found out about this? The Competitive Enterprise Institute had to use a Freedom of Information request!
=====
Did you know that just INTEREST ALONE on the Federal debt was $382 BILLION this year? The government’s own forecasts predict that INTEREST ALONE on the federal debt in 2019 will exceed a TRILLION dollars.
=====
As Evan Bayh wrote in an op-ed which ran in Friday’s Wall Street Journal, government debt and out of control currency creation - just printing paper money... literally out of whole cloth - must lead to stagflation.
Slower growth, higher inflation and interest rates, and lower living standards are what present economic policies will lead us to - and that’s according to Evan Bayh, presently a Democratic Senator representing Indiana and former two-term governor of that state.
In my view, what’s coming if we don’t change course will be far worse than what we saw during the ‘70’s and during the Carter years.
BILL
* Continuing... from 9/22 --
The $410 billion omnibus spending bill passed in March increased domestic discretionary spending by 8% and included more than 8,000 earmarks. This year's budget contemplates domestic discretionary increases of nearly 9%, three times the rate of inflation. If the past is any guide, it will include thousands of new earmarks.
=====
Jobless rates rose in 27 US states last month, with several reaching record levels of unemployment; payrolls declined in 42 states. The US unemployment rate has more than doubled in the past two years and the number of people without jobs has risen by 7.4m since the recession officially began in December 2007 - a scant year after Democrats took control of both Houses of Congress in January of that year.
=====
The chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Sheila Bair, says she is "considering all options, including borrowing from Treasury," to replenish the dwindling fund that insures bank deposits.
=====
The Federal Reserve Board has rejected a request by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for a public review of the central bank’s structure and governance.
=====
Last week 53 Senators - 51 of them Democrats—voted down an amendment by Republican Jim DeMint to stop spending federal funds on the airport that Jack Murtha built with more than $150 million in federal subsidies and earmarks over the last two decades. The airport has three daily commercial flights - all to Washington, D.C. Fewer than 30 passengers use the airport each day. Earlier this year the airport received $800,000 in federal stimulus money, which has been spent in part to pave a second runway, even though the first one is barely in use. Mr. Murtha also secured $8.5 million for a new radar system that's never been used.
BILL
* Continuing... from 9/22 --
If the stimulus isn't working, perhaps it's because it was largely written by a collection of leftist interest groups called the Apollo Alliance that counts among its directors a co-founder of the Weather Underground. The Labor Department reported Friday that 42 states lost more jobs than they gained in August, and that 14 plus Washington, D.C., reported unemployment rates of 10% or more. Clearly, the stimulus bill that no congressman read is not working. As it turns out, no congressman may have written it either. It's largely the creation of a coalition of leftist organizations called the Apollo Alliance, whose primary interests are saving the Earth, environmental justice and redistributing wealth. They are not friends of job-creating capitalism. On Apollo's Web site, Sen. Reid, whose state also leads in foreclosures, is quoted praising the group of which former green czar Van Jones was a board member. "We've talked about moving forward on these ideas for decades," Reid is quoted as saying. "The Apollo Alliance has been an important factor in helping us develop and execute a strategy that makes great progress on these goals and in motivating the public to support them."
=====
Since 1994, more than $53 million in federal funds have been pumped into ACORN, and under the Obama Administration, Acorn stands to receive a whopping $8.5 billion in “stimulus” funds. New York’s Junior Senator, Kirsten Gillebrand, is apparently a diehard supporter of ACORN. Even after the administration itself backed away from the organization in the face of the latest scandals (the Census Bureau cut ties to ACORN) and even after a majority of her Senate colleagues (and recall, Democrats control the Senate) voted to deny ACORN’s further access to federal housing funds for the moment, Gillebrand disgraced herself and disgraced our state by voting (along with five of her Democratic cronies plus self-described socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont) AGAINST the sanction of ACORN, by voting to CONTINUE federal funding of what appears to be a criminal enterprise deeply involved in all manner of fraud and illegality.
BILL
* Continuing... from 9/22 --
Some of the most influential aides in the closed-door Senate Finance Committee negotiations over health care reform have ties to interests that would be directly affected by the legislation. Before she was hired last year as senior counsel to Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Liz Fowler worked as a highly paid public policy adviser for WellPoint Inc., the nation’s largest publicly traded health benefits company. Mark Hayes, health policy director and chief health counsel for Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley is married to a registered lobbyist for a firm that represents drug companies and hospital groups. Frederick Isasi, a health policy adviser to Sen. Jeff Bingaman was a registered lobbyist at Powell Goldstein, where his clients included public hospitals and the American Stroke Association. Kate Spaziani, senior health policy aide to Sen. Kent Conrad, was also a registered lobbyist at Powell Goldstein, where she lawyered for public hospitals on Medicare issues.
BILL
* Continuing... from 9/22 --
The centerpiece of the Obama-Baucus plan is a decree that everyone purchase heavily regulated insurance policies or else pay a penalty. This government mandate would require huge subsidies as well as brute force to get anywhere near the goal of universal coverage. The inevitable result would be a vast increase in the government's share of U.S. health spending, forcing doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and other health providers to serve politics as well as or even over and above patients.
=====
The subsidies in the Baucus plan will be available to people without a job-based plan who earn up to almost THREE TIMES the federal poverty level.
=====
As with the House bill, Senator Baucus' proposal uses 10 years of taxes to fund about seven years of spending.
(*SMIRK*)
Some $215 billion is scrounged up by imposing a 35% excise tax on insurance companies for plans valued at more than $21,000 for families and $8,000 for individuals. This levy would merely be added to the insurers' "administrative load" and passed down to all consumers in higher prices. Ditto for the $59 billion that Mr. Baucus would raise by taxing the likes of clinical laboratories and drug and device makers.
=====
Mr. Baucus also wants to cut $409 billion from Medicare, according to CBO, including $123 billion from the Medicare Advantage program. Liberal Democrats hate the Advantage program because it gives more than 10 million seniors private options.
=====
To sum up, the Baucus-Obama plan would increase the cost of insurance and then force people to buy it, requiring subsidies. Those subsidies would be paid for by taxes that make health care and thus insurance even more expensive, requiring even more subsidies and still higher taxes. It's a recipe to ruin health care and bankrupt the country, and that's even before liberal Democrats see Mr. Baucus and raise him, and then attempt to ram it all through the Senate.
BILL
* Continuing... from 9/22 --
You folks know that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have overturned Welfare Reform, right? The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act - the landmark Welfare Reform that Republicans forced President Clinton to sign into law and which he took credit for - ended the practice of Washington sending more welfare money to the states when the states increased their caseloads. But the reform was reversed through a provision in this February’s stimulus bill. As outlined in a new Heritage Institute study analysis, over this year and next, annual federal welfare spending will jump by a third, from $522 billion to $697 billion. Over the next decade (which includes the current fiscal year), welfare spending will hit that $10.3 trillion mark - $7.5 trillion in taxpayers' money disbursed by Washington, $2.8 trillion in taxpayers' money handed out by the states. None of this even includes what the federal government will spend if it successfully takes over health care.
=====
Now President Obama is talking about bailing out the newspaper industry!
BILL
* Continuing... from 9/22 --
President Obama and Hillary Clinton are still on the wrong side of the Honduran question. They’re literally backing Hugo Chavez and fellow traveler Manuel Zelaya against the Honduran Congress, High Court, and People. As our own Congressional Research Service recently concluded, “Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system.” But does President Obama care? Does Hillary Rodham Clinton care? No. Their response... they’ve sanctioned the Honduran High Court - they’ve revoked the visas of all 15 members of that court; for all intents and purposes the Obama administration is now engaged in diplomatic “war” with the democratically elected and historically allied nation of Honduras in cooperation with Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro!
=====
Hassan Nemazee, a fund-raiser for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, has been indicted for defrauding Bank of America, HSBC and Citigroup Inc out of more than $290 million in loan proceeds, U.S. prosecutors said on Monday. Nemazee, 59, typically donates more than $100,000 annually to Democratic political candidates. He was as one of the top "bundlers" of contributions to Obama's presidential campaign in 2008.
BILL
MOVING ON TO OUR SEPTEMBER 29 SHOW --
Congress' chief budget officer is contradicting President Barack Obama's oft-stated claim that seniors wouldn't see their Medicare benefits cut under a health care overhaul. The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, told senators Tuesday that seniors in Medicare's managed care plans would see reduced benefits under a bill in the Finance Committee.
=====
Did you know that the Obama administration pressured - successfully pressured - the Washington Post to delay it’s reporting on General McCrystal’s report on the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and the general’s request for additional troops?
=====
While average Americans are facing cutbacks, belt tightening, and even job loss, our federal government has added approximately 25,000 new hires to the payroll - courtesy of you and me... the American taxpayer. While the private sector has lost nearly four million jobs during the first nine months of the Age of Obama, the federal government has bulked up - Washington now boasts a federal bureaucracy of two million federal employees... not counting the military of course.
BILL
* Continuing... from 9/29 --
Last Tuesday, Douglas Elmendorf, the Congressional Budget Office director testified before the Senate Finance Committee that the Democrat’s plan to cut $123 billion from Medicare Advantage - the program that gives almost one-fourth of seniors private health-insurance options - will result in lower benefits and some 2.7 million people losing this coverage.
=====
Democrats moved Thursday to bail out the Postal Service, allowing the quasi-governmental entity to defer $4 billion in payments due at the end of this month to cover retirement benefits for its employees.
=====
While American households are reducing their debt at a 1.7% annual rate, and American business are reducing their debt at a 1.8% annual rate, the Federal government - with a Democrat in the White House and Democrats controlling both houses of Congress - is increasing government debt at a 28.2% annual rate! Oh... and do you know who is responsible for paying off this debt, for paying the interest on this debt? We are!
BILL
* Continuing... from 9/29 --
U.S. regulators reported on Thursday that total losses from large loans made by banks and other financial institutions rose from a relatively low $2.6 billion in 2008, the last year of the Bush administration, to $53.3 billion in 2009, the first year of the Obama administration.
=====
A tiny car company backed by former Vice President Al Gore has just gotten a $529 million U.S. government loan to help build a hybrid sports car in Finland that will sell for about $89,000. The award this week follows a $465 million government loan to a company which manufactures - in England, not the U.S. - a $109,000 electric roadster.
=====
Thanks to a John Kerry earmark, the military spending bill moving through Congress contains a $20 million outlay for Boston that has nothing to do with national defense, rather, it goes to an educational institute honoring late Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts.
BILL
* Continuing... from 9/29 --
Five more of American’s finest were killed in Afghanistan on Thursday. So far this month, 38 American troops have been killed in Afghanistan. For all of 2009, the number is 220 -- more than any other single year and more than died in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 combined.
=====
According to Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staft Tom Barthold, failure to pony up the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance opens one up to being charged with a misdemeanor under U.S. Code 7203 with possible penalties being up to a year in jail or a $25,000 fine.
=====
In letters released on September 22nd, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf told Chairman Max Baucus and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley respectively that his agency simply had not been provided with sufficient legislative language and time to analyze whether insurance premiums would go up under Obamacare nor how many unauthorized billions of dollars in health benefits illegal immigrants would receive.
BILL
* Continuing... from 9/29 --
To ensure that the Senate would actually know what they were voting on, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) offered an amendment that would have required that actual legislative text, as well as a final Congressional Budget Office estimate of the cost of the bill, be posted for 72 hours on the Senate Finance Committee website for public review before the Senate Finance Committee could vote on its final passage. The Bunning amendment was defeated on a largely party-line vote, with all Senate Democrats - with the exception of Senator Blanche Lincoln - voting against it.
=====
Has John Hall signed the discharge petition - the bipartisan “72 hour resolution” - sponsored by Brian Baird, a Washington Democrat, and Greg Walden, an Oregon Republican? This would allow a vote on a bill which would require all non-emergency legislation to be posted online, in final form, for at least 72 hours prior to a floor vote. If not, why not?
=====
When Mr. Obama announced his current Afghanistan policy in March, he said it was "a stronger, smarter, more comprehensive strategy" that would build schools, hospitals, roads, and enterprise zones, addressing issues like energy and trade. Where are those efforts? He said "to advance security, opportunity and justice - not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces - we need agricultural specialists and educators; engineers and lawyers." Where are those specialists? The president said "I am ordering a substantial increase in our civilians on the ground." He directed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to develop a diplomatic plan to parallel Gen. McChrystal's military plan. Where is that plan? The administration has done virtually nothing in these areas. Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, sent in a plea for funding for some of these civilian projects last month. It was dismissed as premature. The administration has not named a director for the Agency for International Development. And only 56 additional civilians as part of the "civilian surge" were in place before Afghanistan's August elections, which by all accounts was marred by massive fraud.
BILL
* Continuing... from 9/29 --
Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve chairman who worked with President Reagan to slay inflation in the 1980s, now leads President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. He warned in Congressional testimony Thursday that the pending Treasury plan could lead to more taxpayer bailouts by designating even nonbanks as "systemically important." "The clear implication of such designation whether officially acknowledged or not will be that such institutions . . . will be sheltered by access to a federal safety net in time of crisis; they will be broadly understood to be 'too big to fail,'" Mr. Volcker told Congress.
=====
The Baucus bill would impose annual fees of $6.7 billion on health insurance companies, $4 billion on medical device producers, $2.3 billion on drug manufacturers and $750 million on clinical laboratories.
Breast-cancer mortality is 52% higher in Germany and 88% higher in Britain than in the U.S.
Prostate-cancer mortality is 457% higher in Norway and 604% higher in Britain than in the U.S.
54% of men in the U.S. have had a prostate-specific antigen test, compared with 16% of Canadian men.
On average, doctors in a survey say neurosurgery should be performed within 5.8 weeks, but in Canada it takes about 31 weeks. And orthopedic surgery should be within 11 weeks, but in Canada it takes 37 weeks.
BILL
* Continuing... from 9/29 --
Sen. Dianne Feinstein and the Democrats have voted to deny water to California's drought-stricken San Joaquin Valley. Farmers, families and food are being held hostage to an endangered fish called the delta smelt. The largest man-made agricultural disaster since the Dust Bowl of the 1930s is unfolding in the valley; to protect the smelt, billions of gallons of water from the mountains east and north of Sacramento have been channeled away from farms and into the ocean, while farmers watched their crops wither and their once-productive land become barren. Total economic losses could hit $3 billion this year. In affected areas, the jobless rate is at 14%, with farming towns such as Mendota experiencing unemployment near 40%.
=====
Social Security will pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes over the next two years and while things may turn around in 2013 - may - Social Security as a program is set to go into permanent deficit mode in 2016.
=====
President Obama’s hand-picked military commander in Afghanistan says he has only spoken to President Obama once since taking command of Afghanistan. “I’ve talked to the president, since I’ve been here, once on a video teleconference,” General Stanley McChrystal told CBS reporter David Martin in a television interview that aired Sunday. “You’ve talked to him once in 70 days?” Mr. Martin followed up. “That is correct,” the general replied.
BILL
* Continuing... from 9/29 --
Democrats want to use Medicaid to cover everyone up to at least 133% of the federal poverty level; starting in 2014, the Baucus Plan would spend $287 billion through 2019 to add some 11 million new people to the Medicaid rolls. Democrats want to change a program originally sold as a safety net for poor women, children, and the disabled into a boondoggle that would subsidize approximately a quarter of our entire population. State budgets would explode - by $37 billion according to the Congressional Budget Office - because states would no longer be allowed to set eligibility in line with their own decisions about taxes and spending. According to the WSJ, this is the mother - and father and crazy uncle - of unfunded mandates.
=====
As of this month, some 48 states had shortfalls in their 2010 budgets totaling $168 billion - or 24% of total state budgets. Medicaid is a main culprit, accounting on average for the second largest component in state budgets at 20.7%.
=====
New York's iconic Empire State Building will light up red and yellow Wednesday in honor of the 60th anniversary of communist China.
BILL
* Continuing... from 9/29 --
The Federal Housing Administration’s loan delinquency rate (more than 30 days late in payments) is now above 14%. FHA's cash reserve fund is rapidly depleting and may drop below its Congressionally mandated 2% of insurance liabilities by the end of the year. At a 50 to 1 leverage ratio, the FHA will soon have a smaller capital cushion than did investment bank Bear Stearns on the eve of its crash. The reason for this financial deterioration is that FHA is underwriting record numbers of high-risk mortgages. Between 2006 and the end of next year, FHA's insurance portfolio will have expanded to $1 trillion from $410 billion. Today nearly one in four new mortgages carries an FHA guarantee, up from one in 50 in 2006. Through FHA, the Veterans Administration, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, taxpayers now guarantee repayment on more than 80% of all U.S. mortgages.
=====
Unemployment among Americans aged 16–24 is now at a post-World War II high. According to Northwestern University, half of college grads under 25 that do hold jobs are working in a position that doesn’t require a degree.
BILL
And all of this has come to pass since January 2009, with no antecedents. Amazing
Congrats on the radio show! Unfortunately, I'm usually working then, but my next Tuesday off I'll try and remember to call. :)
"And all of this has come to pass since January 2009, with no antecedents. Amazing."
No, Rob; not without antecedents. But reality is reality... the Dems have had firm control of BOTH Houses of Congress since January 2007, absolute control (in theory at least) since Al Franken was installed, AND... Obama has been President since January of this year.
Hey... Rob... all I'm doing is creating a news digest in "real time."
Whether you believe me or not, if the GOP still controlled Congress and the White House I'd be doing the EXACT SAME THING.
(*SHRUG*)
BILL
* Hey... Rob... was that you who deleted the 10/4 11:39 am comment...???
Hey... Rob... was that you who deleted the 10/4 11:39 am comment...???
Yes, in order to fix a typo.
You're not creating an OBJECTIVE new digest--it's all filtered through your particular political biases. That's fine, but don't pretend otherwise. You take Obama out of context when you blame him for what he inherited when assuming the office.
Then you speak as though congressmen and senators of either party are free agents, and able to enact anything that they wish to enact--which is ideally true--but which in terms of reality (real politik) is NOT true. They can only act within the parameters allowed by those behind the scenes who pay their bills and buy the right to pull their strings.
Then you deny the true will of the people (which with price of a fare will get you on the bus) which every credible poll shows to be in favor of a public option, if not single-payer, and against the phony War on Terror.
When you tell only half the story (or less than half, actually) you are just sloganeering. That's fine if you're addressing teabaggers, or cousin Ed, and similar morons, but if you're talking to (or at) people who actually THINK, that dog don't hunt.
Oh, and let me just add this: the concessions that Obama has already gotten from the insurance industry, as written into all of the proposed legislation, and which will, therefore, be enacted into law eventually, is already more than has been accomplished by any other POTUS in the long, sad history of attempted health care reform. If pre-existing conditions and major illness are eliminated as reasons for an insurer to dump or deny a client, we have already come a long way. It's not far enough, but it's a good start--the best we've ever seen.
"You're not creating an OBJECTIVE new digest..."
(*ROLLING MY EYES*)
Rob. I'm throwing TRUTHFUL, verifiable, FACTS out there.
Are there "other" facts? Sure.
Rob. Anyone can do what I do. (Well... anyone who can READ and who has access to the internet and libraries.)
Listen. We've known each other a fair number of years now. You take a sort of weird "pride" in avoiding or dismissing inconvenient truths.
(*GRIN*) (Cute, huh!) (*SMILE*)
Hey... that's your prerogative. They say ignorance is bliss and from my experience... most folks like to be... er... blissful.
(*SHRUG*)
Hey... read my blog... read my "notes"... it'll make you smarter.
(*SHRUG*)
That's about all I can advise...
BILL
A "fact" taken out of context does not necessarily reveal a TRUTH. An isolated fact is devoid of meaning. A fact has meaning only in relation to everything with which it is connected and contingent. That is why one can make statistics, for instance, "prove" just about anything that one needs to prove. You can pluck facts out of the air to help you believe whatever it is that you need to believe to make your imaginary world be just what you want it to be--have a blast.
I've been knocking Obama heavily on his war policy. I generally support his attempts at health care reform. I acknowledge that his ability to carry through with some of this ideas is crippled by a bought-and-paid-for congress: those are not "facts" that you can enter onto a spreadsheet, but they express reality, nonetheless. I'm for Obama when I'm for him and against him where I'm against him. The political right in this country is against him, regardless of what he tries to do. By contrast, Bush got support from the left on some of his domestic policy, and even on his war policy to a certain extent. Obama is getting NO support from the right.
The bottom line about "facts" is that they are amoral. You can "prove" that, for instance, single-payer isn't feasible for all kinds of different reasons; but morally it may still be the best way to go, given all of the options. Society needs to be more like a family, clan, or tribe, and less like a corporation, or army, if we are to preserve our basic humanity.
You may think that you're "smart," because you have all the facts, but your opinions show that you are not wise.
Society needs to be more like a family, clan, or tribe, and less like a corporation, or army, if we are to preserve our basic humanity.
Rodak, while I agree with your premise, how does giving more power over our lives to the government, a bunch of arrogant strangers in Washington, get you to a more family-like society? You can't make a clan out of 300 million people.
"Government" and "society" are not necessarily interchangeable terms. That said, what I meant was that a family does not stop to decide whether it can "afford" to provide health care to a sick member; society/government should not, either. It should be a top priority, and available to all--like "national security" which nobody questions how much can be spent on--regardless of their personal circumstances.
That said, what I meant was that a family does not stop to decide whether it can "afford" to provide health care to a sick member; society/government should not, either.
Rodak, how do you control the motivations of others, short of a totalitarian society? Even then, the people in charge have no obligation to do the right thing for the people, hence you cannot gain a "family-like" society when those in charge have no obligation to the people.
Even if you do somehow manage to get a society/government which works as you picture it, eventually someone new will come into power, and they may not be as concerned with the public welfare as you would like.
The best way to get a family-like society is for government to promote the family to the ultimate power structure within society. As long as government keeps taking power from the family (for example, by taking more money from families through various taxation schemes), we will never see the kind of society we both want.
Tell that to a Swede or a Dane.
Tell that to a Swede or a Dane.
Using that logic, in order for socialized medicine to work here, you will have to break down control over the system in the U.S. into population groups of roughly 9 million people. So we'll need about 10 different bureaucracies running 10 different systems across the U.S., because socialized medicine has never worked effectively in countries larger than 9 million people.
Where does the figure 9 million come from? The population of France, for one, is over 61 million, and its health care system is ranked as the best in the world.
Where does France come from? You said "a Swede or a Dane"? Unless Napoleon has returned and started marching on Sweden and Denmark, I don't think the French occupy those countries...
But since your argument doesn't work with Sweden and Denmark, I'll let you change the subject. If you want to use France, your argument still doesn't hold up, since the population of the U.S. is five times bigger than France. And that doesn't even begin to touch on cultural differences.
I didn't change the subject. I was pointing out that socialized medicine HAS worked in countries with a population greater than 9 million.
As for France, they have worse ethnic problems than we do and every bit as much of a mix of cultures.
If France, five times as big as Denmark can do it, then the U.S., five times as big as France can do it. Your argument is baseless and
Here's a money quote from a Business Week article which actually gives the French system kudos:
That's not to say the French have solved all health-care riddles. Like every other nation, France is wrestling with runaway health-care inflation. That has led to some hefty tax hikes, and France is now considering U.S.-style health-maintenance organization tactics to rein in costs.
...Additionally, almost all French buy supplemental insurance, similar to Medigap, which reduces their out-of-pocket costs and covers extra expenses such as private hospital rooms, eyeglasses, and dental care.
In France, the sicker you get, the less you pay. Chronic diseases, such as diabetes, and critical surgeries, such as a coronary bypass, are reimbursed at 100%. Cancer patients are treated free of charge.
I will give the French credit for one thing: Their system accentuates the catastrophic aspect of health care, which is really where our system needs to be (and I include private insurance in that comment).
Their system is also NOT the "free health care for all" system that you want.
But I would also add that the French system is NOT what our politicians are proposing, which is too bad. A variation on the French system which is weighted more heavily to funding health care for critical conditions is something I could support.
(http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm)
What I want is single-payer. This does not imply "free health care for all." Obviously the health care has to be paid for through taxation of the entire population, and/or fees of some kind.
I have always said that with single-payer supplementary insurance should be available for those who want it and can afford it, as is the case with Medicare now.
You are correct in targeting the guaranteed provision of catastrophic health care without personal financial jeopardy as key to reform.
I don't see how we arrive at that through corporate insurance companies, however. Capitalist corporations are not set up to do anything but maximize their profits. This runs contrary to catastrophic coverage through a market-based system.
As for higher taxes--c'est la guerre.
What I want is single-payer. This does not imply "free health care for all." Obviously the health care has to be paid for through taxation of the entire population, and/or fees of some kind.
I have always said that with single-payer supplementary insurance should be available for those who want it and can afford it, as is the case with Medicare now.
You are correct in targeting the guaranteed provision of catastrophic health care without personal financial jeopardy as key to reform.
I don't see how we arrive at that through corporate insurance companies, however. Capitalist corporations are not set up to do anything but maximize their profits. This runs contrary to catastrophic coverage through a market-based system.
As for higher taxes--c'est la guerre.
Rodak, you know I'm not fond of third party payer systems, whether they are private insurance or government. That said, I'm not averse to having such a system for critical health conditions, especially when the cost of treatment can be financially obscene. How often have you heard of people without health insurance who were in an accident, or developed cancer, and their family and friends got together to pay for their health care? I've seen it numerous times, and I believe all of us can agree that those situations are a valid use of government funds.
Where you and I have traditionally separated is in the use of government funds for preventive health care. In cases where 50+% of Americans were at risk, then I'd say it should be covered. Any less than that and it should be left to individuals to cover their own costs for preventive care (or private insurance if they have it).
BTW, I also don't think corporations should get tax deductions for providing health insurance. Catastrophic health coverage can be provided by the government, with any other health insurance purchased by individuals out of their own pocket.
The problem with your reasoning is that many people either won't, or can't, pay for preventive medicine out of pocket. So they don't get it. The result of that, of course, is that conditions that could have been caught early and treated relatively cheaply end up being catastrophic. So the number of catastrophic cases increases dramatically and the government ends up paying more than it would have otherwise.
Good chat, boys!
One of these days I'll post my own thoughts regarding true health care reform here at my own blog!
(*GRIN*) (*CHUCKLE*)
Hey... I've posted 'em pretty much everywhere else - right?
Rob. Obviously nothing you wrote surprises me. As previously noted, reality rarely intrudes into your thinking.
(Hey... not a nasty shot! Just a reiteration! Facts... knowledge... objective provable truth... these are my standards - and Ed's - not yours. More often than not I simply find your ramblings amusing. Bottom line... you're a nice guy overall.)
I was however surprised to read Ed's comment:
"Catastrophic health coverage can be provided by the government..."
Ed is and always has been fairly inconsistent in his application of free market capitalism.
(*SHRUG*)
Anyway... AGAIN... good exchange guys and thanks for having it here!
BILL
If preventive medicine wasn't cost effective, I guarantee you that corporations, in conjunction with their insurance carriers, wouldn't be pushing programs to promote it--but they are.
I can get highly subsidized gym membership/training programs. And I can get all kinds of preliminary testing, at the expense of my employer. In exchange my employer gets reduced rates from the insurance company.
Preventive medicine is recognized as cost effective by market-based plans, and under single-payer it should, and would, be covered.
And , Bill, you are the one out of touch with reality on this issue. You're looking at health care issues as viewed by Wall Street and not as viewed by medical professionals. Wall Street doesn't care who lives and who dies; Wall Streets only cares who gets rich and who gets bled white.
The result of that, of course, is that conditions that could have been caught early and treated relatively cheaply end up being catastrophic. So the number of catastrophic cases increases dramatically and the government ends up paying more than it would have otherwise.
Rodak, The CBO has already debunked that thinking. For example, if you are talking about a condition which effects less than 1% of the population, does it make economic sense to provide preventive health care to 100%? Of course not.
You can argue that's cruel and heartless, but guess what? If you can't afford a Mercedes, you don't buy one. We as a country cannot afford Cadillac health care for everyone. That is a fact. European countries with universal health care have already learned this lesson.
Ed is and always has been fairly inconsistent in his application of free market capitalism.
Bill, ideally I wouldn't do anything with health care (other then disincentivizing the health insurance industry by removing all corporate tax deductions for health insurance). However, if we HAVE to go down this road, then catastrophic health care is at least something I can live with, since these are situations which most of us would support providing help to those in need.
I'm talking about lots of conditions from many different kinds of cancer, to diabetes, to kidney failure and many other conditions caused by untreated hypertension--heart attack, stroke, etc. I'm talking about any of the thousands of different diseases that can becoming disabling if not treated early.
I repeat: if preventive medicine were not cost effective, more and more corporations and large companies of all kinds would not now be making it available to their workers, and getting a resulting break on premiums from their insurance carriers. That's the market saying that you don't know what you're talking about.
If preventive medicine wasn't cost effective, I guarantee you that corporations, in conjunction with their insurance carriers, wouldn't be pushing programs to promote it--but they are.
Rodak,
If this is true, ask yourself: Why do health care costs keep going up every year? Your employer may get a "break" on your insurance, but is your employer actually paying less for it? Or even the same amount? The answer is no.
Rodak, have you noticed you STILL have to pay a deductible for preventive health care? Have you noticed what is being held out of your paycheck for health insurance keeps going up every year? Now explain to me how preventive health care makes everything cheaper.
Of course. I'm not saying that we aren't currently being ripped off by the insurance corporations. I'm saying the opposite. Preventive care helps THEIR bottom line. They don't pass that on to ME. I'm the cash cow they're bleeding dry. That's why I want single-payer.
Try to follow the argument for Christ's sake.
Rob,
Preventive medicine adds to medical costs.
Jeez. The pride you take in your ignorance never ceases to amaze me.
Rob. Just google the phrase "preventive medicine increases costs" and browse the results.
(*SIGH*)
Ed. You either do or you don't want government to subsidize catastrophic insurance. My impression is that you do. I get that impression from... er... reading your posts.
(*SHRUG*)
Doesn't sound capitalistic to me; doesn't sound free market to me.
(*SHRUG*)
To reiterate, yes, of course you're ALWAYS going to have SOME degree of government subsidy for pretty much everything at the margins (food, shelter, even clothing, etc.), but to mainstream subsidies...??? No. If that's truly your position than you're not a capitalist, not a free market supporter, and you're not a conservative.
I don't know what else to tell you, Ed. If I'm misreading your intent by taking your words too literally help me out; correct me if I'm misinterpreting your position.
We agree on removing the tax subsidy and we agree with delinking insurance from employment. If I'm reading your correctly we also agree on returning insurance to... er... INSURANCE as opposed to the income transfer system it is now.
Ed. In the final analysis... the math has gotta work.
(*SHRUG*)
Finally... back to Rob:
Rob. Again. You wear your ignorance and obstinacy as a badge of honor. Not quite sure why... but it's as much a part of "who your are" as my arrogance and sarcasm is a part of who *I* am.
Oh, well...
(*SHRUG*)
BILL
Okay, I googled that, but I put "AMA" in front on it. This was the third hit:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/705543_6
You go on and listen to Dr. Krauthammer, et al. I'll listen to actual health care providers. And we'll let time decide which of us is tenaciously holding onto ignorant opinions.
Okay, I guess you have to register to access that site. Here is the closing paragraph of the article to which I tried to link:
"Many suggestions have been made for the improvement of the health of the American people. Perhaps most notably, the Milken Report by Devol et al.[44] suggests that the promulgation and acceptance of guidelines for healthy living could save over two trillion dollars in health costs by the year 2023. The Partnership for Prevention by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation[45] has determined that regular flu shots and cancer screening could save 100,000 lives annually. In addition, they postulate that there would be 45,000 fewer acute coronary events if 90% of people took daily aspirin. Furthermore, they assert that general cessation of smoking could save 42,000 lives annually. These are only a few of the promising avenues yet to be taken."
While nobody is going to argue that initiating widespread preventive medicine practices where none currently are happening isn't going to increase costs initially as calculated by a quarterly bottom line, down the road the savings would be huge. Stop listening to bean-counters and listen to physicians and nurses.
Rob,
Not that it matters to you, but obviously out of millions of "hit" using various search phrases you're going to find like-minded folks who you can point to as buttressing your position, but you know, I know, and Ed knows that you're clutching at straws here and that even if you're not willing to admit it publicly, clearly you realize that the vast, vast, vast majority of expert opinion on the topic at hand points to preventive care being a cost PUSHER vs. a cost saver.
Christ, Rob, even the quote you posted notes:
"...the Milken Report by Devol et al.[44] suggests..."
SUGGESTS. Rob. SUGGESTS.
(*SNORT*)
"...the promulgation and acceptance of guidelines for healthy living could save over two trillion dollars in health costs by the year 2023."
COULD. Rob. COULD.
2023. Rob. 2023.
And THAT'S assuming all of a sudden a population of 306-plus million people pretty much changes social norms as relate to health on a dime.
Rob. Again. It's not really worth "arguing" with you. There's just no way to "win" with a guy who disdains facts, evidence, and past experience.
As you may have noted by my latest blog thread post I'm not in the mood for "playing" with you anyway.
(*SHRUG*)
BILL
I didn't find "like-minded folks"--I went to the AMA. You go to opinion columnists and the CBO (God knows, they've never been wrong and are COMPLETELY impartial!)
Bill--the whole friggin' government is on the take. Both parties. You are not going to get truth, or even sense, out of a pack of whores and pimps. Doctors know what medicine can do, and they know what it costs to do it.
And nobody is bribing them to tell you anything other than what they know. This is the "industry" I've worked in most of my adult life, and my wife continues to work in now.
But I should listen to Charles Krauthammer and a pack of pols instead? Fine. Go your own way, Bill.
I'm not saying that we aren't currently being ripped off by the insurance corporations.
Rodak,
Health insurance has some of the smallest profit margines in all of business, including the insurance industry. These aren't evil Scrooges stealing your money.
What this is, is you ignoring economic reality. People with health insurance tend to overuse it, because the cost to them is minimal. When you're paying $25-50 to see your doctor, you can see him for every insignificant little thing that MIGHT be a problem. What you fail to realize is that you ARE paying for it, through reduced wages every year.
And you're also paying for every hypochondriac with health insurance. But you don't mind having money taken out of your pocket to help enable neurotic overuse of the health care industry. However, I DO mind.
Doesn't sound capitalistic to me; doesn't sound free market to me.
Bill,
As you are fond of hitting me over the head with, the politicial reality of our current system does NOT support the free market. We do NOT have a free market system at the moment. Frankly, we have some kind of socialist/fascist hybrid.
Recognizing THAT political reality, and recognizing that even the supposed "conservatives" are going to promote some form of socialized health care, then I am merely suggesting a form of it which will have minimal negative economic side effects.
Now if I thought my ideas for health care stood a chance politically, I'd push them. But what do you think the chances of getting a bill passed which would: (1) remove all tax deductions for health care costs, including health insurance, and tax them as income, allowing an exception for catastrophic health insurance; (2) provide economic incentives to doctors and nurses, including scholarship debt payoffs; (3) eliminate punitive medical malpractice awards in our tort system, and replace it with a true malpractice system which would de-license doctors who are truly incompetent; and (4) eliminate Medicare? Number 4 alone dooms my idea.
So I'll just sit back, wait for our economy to collapse, and then we can have a realistic discussion about true health care reform. In the meantime, we can all have "filet mignon" health care at "hamburger" prices, because altruistic fools like Rodak and Obama think it's the right thing to do...
"...we have some kind of socialist/fascist hybrid."
You're right, Ed. No doubt about it.
And what I'm saying is that "normal democratic means" - following the same playbook, the same rules which got us to this point in the first place - ain't gonna save us.
Nope. Our only chance is a military coup and that just AIN'T gonna happen.
"So I'll just sit back, wait for our economy to collapse..."
Let me ask you - seriously - who would it take or what would it take to convince you to take up arms and engage in violence if necessary in order to overthrow the present system?
(Hey... this is a country whose Founders did EXACTLY that in order to CREATE the nation in the first place; therefore, I don't think it's a nutty question.)
BILL
Let me ask you - seriously - who would it take or what would it take to convince you to take up arms and engage in violence if necessary in order to overthrow the present system?
Oh, please do! The two of you! Jump into your macho jockstraps, take up arms, and launch a fusillade at the local Marine recruiting station (you'll have to go through the military to get to the Reed-Pelosi Axis of Evil)as the opening salvo of your campaign to storm Capitol Hill. I beg you to do it! It your right to die for that in which you believe! And I can think of NOBODY more deserving of that honor than Barker and McGon! And please, please have your nation-liberating assault taped by your next-of-kin. If I can't watch it on YouTube the next day, IT DOESN'T COUNT!
Let me ask you - seriously - who would it take or what would it take to convince you to take up arms and engage in violence if necessary in order to overthrow the present system?
Bill,
We JUST had an election where Obama was elected. I don't think the country is ready for an overthrow yet. ;)
Pussy.
Tough talk from the pacifist...
Uh..that's the point, isn't it: walk the talk?
I'm not the one calling for overthrowing the government. While I won't rule out the possibility in the future, it's premature to call for it now.
As for you, name-calling on this subject is a bit hypocritical, considering you wouldn't even use a gun, let alone participate in a rebellion...
Rob.
You're right about Ed; he's dancing around the question.
(*SHRUG*)
"Premature."
(*SNORT*)
So says the man favoring secession.
(*GRIN*)
BILL
It has nothing to do with anything that Ed might actually do in this world, and isn't worth discussing.
Bill, even you have to realize there is a huge difference between an overthrow of our current federal government, and secession.
Overthrowing our government assumes that I'd actually wish to continue sharing a country with the likes of socialist rabble like Rodak. ;)
Secession! Ha! You know what we do to secessionists, don't you, Cuz? We burn their fields, rape their women, raze their cities, and then we make fun of them for the next 200 years!
Bring it on!
Gladly Rodak. The Northerners of the mid-1800's were a different breed from the modern North. If the South seceded today, you'd probably whine at us. Considering the fact the modern U.S. military is mostly made up of Southerners, who is going to stop us? Heck, Iceland could conquer Maine and you'd be helpless.
Enjoy your little pacifist/communist state.
Okay, Johnny Yuma. If you're the last one out, kill the lights like a good lad.
Post a Comment