Lately the left wing media pundits have been lamenting the inability of the Obama administration to enact policy. From health care to cap & trade; the administration's failure to move the nation quickly leftward has caused many to opine that the system is broken.
Is the political system broken? Has the acrimony in Washington reached a plateau that precludes any cooperation whatsoever? Has the legislative machinery broken down so thoroughly that no one is capable of running the country effectively?
These are all questions that have been posed lately by the mainstream media. They consider the state of health care, environmental protection, an anemic economy, high unemployment, and the failure of the government to stimulate growth. The President's incapacity to record progress in these domestic policy areas is cited as evidence that the country may truly be ungovernable. I mean, if Barack Obama can't fix these things within the first year of his reign, what chance would a mere mortal have anyway?
Washington Post writer Ezra Klein recently said; "…the Senate is fundamentally broken and repairs should top our list of priorities." His feeling is that it is absurd that the Senate requires 60 votes to invoke cloture. Many sitting and former Senators, it would seem, agree; especially after the Massachusetts special election.
Vice President Joe Biden was recorded recently during a Florida fundraiser on January 17th saying; "As long as I have served . . . This is the first time every single solitary decision has required 60 senators." Of course this is Joe Biden. Like a goose, he wakes up in a whole new world each and every day.
It's probably unnecessary for me to point out here, that for the most part, this is a conclusion the progressive left has only recently come to: And only because of the stiff resistance they've encountered to their agenda since presuming a nougat mandate was encapsulated in the candy coated election results of 2008.
I seem to recall as recently as August of 2009 when then Senator Hillary Clinton screeched at the top of her lungs; "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." Apparently; what she meant by any administration, was any conservative administration.
As a PSA announcement to those special people who regularly inhabit the comment section of the Intellectual Conservative (and you know who you are); you're all balancing on the cusp of an epiphany. Yes Virginia, the country is practically ungovernable. It was purposefully meant to be ungovernable!
In their unbridled genius, the Founding Fathers created a system of government that purposefully made the federal government so weak, and the balance of federal power so convoluted, that the ability of the federal government to exert meticulous control over the everyday lives of American Citizens was nearly impossible. That was the idea!
That it has taken progressives this long to figure it out goes along way toward validating everything the rest of us here have been saying. That the progressive inability to analyze systems, particularly systems of governance, is so inhibited that one may reasonably call it a disability. I wonder if the Obama administration will create a special program to fight this mental disease. Doubtful; as they are the carriers, the "patient zero" if you will.
When they are out of power the system is supposed to be unmanageable. It is their duty to gum up the works as much as possible. To tirelessly challenge, and if feasible, vanquish the conservative agenda at every turn.
Oh, but when they assume the reins of power they completely forget this notion; and cradle their collective heads in disbelief that not only the opposition, but the very people that elected them would dare to oppose their agenda. "Why would the very citizens who granted us these majorities contest our redistributive programs of social justice?"
The answer lies within the progressive movement itself. Progressives are masters at obscurantism; they never say what they mean. A progressive politician doesn't come out and say; "I believe that the federal government has the power to make all medical decisions for all Americans!" They say "We have to reign in the evil insurance companies that are deliberately killing innocents in order to enhance their profits." They don't say; "The government has the right to 'control' the ability of 'certain' groups that have a propensity to over-breed." They say; "A woman's medical decisions are privileged communications between herself and her doctor." They don't announce "We're going to increase taxes on the wealthy until blood shoots out of their eyes!" They lecture on "… how the country must invest in the future of our children." All the while increasing the debt load those very future generations will be forced to carry.
There are two things going on here; and the answer to both lies in the progressive code. First; progressives will never announce the actual intentions they harbor. The last time they did such a thing was when Walter Mondale, during his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in 1983 said; "Let's tell the truth. It must be done, it must be done. Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did."
Mondale went on to win his home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia. Reagan's 525 electoral votes to Mondale's 13 was the highest total ever received by a presidential candidate, ever. This effectively ended the progressive experiment of truth telling. It also explains the progressive obsession regarding the elimination of the Electoral College.
Second; you might ask; "How could anyone hold two such simultaneously opposed beliefs?" To believe that government bureaucracy is the only recourse for American health care but no entity should be the least involved in a medical decision.
Again, this isn't about freedom, or personal liberty; it's about control. Progressives are obsessed with control. From campus speech codes, to the overturning of ballot initiatives by unaccountable judicial activists, even running stealth candidates in margin thin districts to achieve majorities, whichever method best advances the cause is always the tool of choice.
This is why whenever they do achieve ultimate power, as in 2008, they proceed to dismantle as much of the current system as possible. By shaking the very underpinnings of the nation, they strive to topple our constitutional system of government. They seek to destroy it so they may replace it.
They ask; "Shouldn't a constitution that portends to enumerate the 'rights' of the people include a right to medical care, the right to a home, and the right to a job?" The last constitution that included such rights was written in 1936 by a gentleman by the name of Joseph Stalin. We all have access to historical evidence as to how well that all worked out.
Progressives will continue to wring their hands, and lament the terrible void that exists in the Constitution toward centralized federal control; never accepting the fact that the void was placed there by design.
Bill:
Good points all, but I begin to wonder if the problem actually lies within the fundamental nature of our political system rather than the efforts of those opportunists we call by various names: Progressives, Liberals, Lefties. We can vilify our opponents as if they are a small Amish sect living in rural Ohio, radically different from us with strange beliefs and habits of thought, but, in reality, they are the couple next door, he’s called Dick, her name is Jane. She contributes to PETA, he donates to the ACLU, they’re a nice couple, their kids go to the same school as yours, you share many things in common, the same teachers talk to both your families during the PTA meeting, high property taxes irritate you, Dick and Jane also believe they aren’t getting their money’s worth from local government, your list of shared likes and dislikes is quite extensive. Yet, at the annual block party picnic, it’s obvious they don’t share your political philosophy – you and your wife see the future of our country in fundamentally different ways from the couple next door.
Dick and Jane want more government control in certain areas, they sincerely believe it will lead to a better society, a more even distribution of wealth which in turn will reduce the built-in inequities that prevent social progress. In fact, the bone of contention always seems to lie within the unknown future rather than the past – what we believe the role of government should be shapes our decisions, controls the course we believe the future should take. You can readily agree with Dick and Jane on what you don’t like, severe recessions are bad, pork, earmarks, political payoffs should be severely curtailed, terrorism must be fought. The Dick and Janes of the country may believe in higher government spending supported by higher taxes if the reason for the spending is justified within their minds, but they don’t want to drive the country into bankruptcy, they’re not stupid and want economic stability and personal freedom just as you do.
So if you share many more common aspirations for the future of our nation than points of contention, why the decades of leftward drift? I think the problem stems from a lack of equilibrium within the very nature of government. For the most part, we collectively believe equilibrium exists within our politics, Democrats and Republicans, the political Yin vs. Yang meant to create a functioning equilibrium necessary to maintaining a healthy society. But how realistic is that belief? Other societies, Europe, Canada, Australia, Israel have competing political parties as well but every one of these societies is moving left, some faster than others but no one can deny where we’re all going, it’s like an 8 lane freeway in which traffic flows in one direction only.
Where are those cars which should be moving in the opposite direction on the political highway? In fact, we can see the lanes on the highway intended to move traffic in the opposite direction, but nothing seems to be moving on the other side of the freeway divider – eventually, we begin to realize these lanes are open but the freeway on and off ramps giving drivers access are closed or under construction or they have monitoring lights which allows few cars to enter or leave. There’s no such problem on our side of the freeway, the on-off ramps are wide, nothing restricts the flow of traffic. It seems the traffic engineers and Highway Dept. have gone off the deep end, a freeway that can only move traffic in one direction leads to severe dislocations in traffic patterns.
However, if you look at the nature of our political system, equilibrium isn’t possible for a number of reasons. Primary among these reasons is the lack of competition for your government dollar. When you compare business to government the difference is readily apparent; business must compete within a defined environment which constantly tends toward equilibrium, government does not. Mature industries have reached equilibrium and, in the absence of outside forces disrupting the underlying economic structure, these industries tend to remain that way. New technology appears, new marketing approaches generate new market niches, but eventually IPODs become commonplace, Starbucks franchises and new store openings stabilize to a set number. Once an industry reaches equilibrium, the battle becomes a matter of a few percentage points increase in sales, a slight increase in profit margins.
And equilibrium, once achieved, can be comfortable and acceptable to all; business executives earn their annual bonuses but not because they totally revolutionized the business they steer. Competition, taxes, physical limits on expansion of the market or on the ability to radically improve the product are the primary constraints which impose equilibrium on an industry. Businesses do go under, but industries seldom do unless there is pressure from outside the business environment. Executives aren’t expected to increase market share by 100%, a 5% increase over many years is considered a job well done.
But a government deals with none of the constraints which create equilibrium within the world of business. And without equilibrium and the related constraints which generate and sustain equilibrium, government must expand, expand in terms of control and what’s best for those who directly benefit from increased expansion – namely, the politicians and government workers.
To understand this, imagine a scenario where Ford Motor Co. masses an army in Dearborn and then attacks General Motors at their RenCen HQ and moves on Chrysler within their Auburn Hills building. Ford’s forces eventually prevail, every American made car is a Ford from now on. But Toyota, Nissan and Honda are still out there, so dealerships are attacked next, you can no longer purchase a foreign car within these United States, dealerships are either a smoking ruin or their sign is being changed to read “Ford”. But with victory comes greed and arrogance. Pesky laws are ignored, emissions, toxic or otherwise, are no of concern, labor unions crushed (is that so bad?) – the result is now a stable no-risk sales rate at the highest possible margin per unit. And what worked for cars would also work for other consumables – General Electric and Westinghouse start recruiting for their armies, they do battle, the end result is a nation of Sears stores selling only GE appliances.
Eventually, Ford or General Electric may come to dominate all industries, all restaurants may fall under control of the Golden Arches, Universal Studios makes every movie released. Monopoly is efficient with immense profits for owners, competition is disruptive and risky. Ford will decide to retain Buick and Jeep within their own offerings, consumers appreciate the illusion of choice but the underlying reality is that Ford, its executives and labor force, completely controls auto production, at least until GE decides to redeploy its armed forces.
Like competing firms within an industry, our original colonies were in competition as well as cooperation with each other and were adamant the Federal government wouldn’t make their colony, later to become a state, completely subservient to a central power. That all changed over the years, Washington D. C. became ascendant and now thoroughly dominates all lesser divisions of political power, the tendency toward an increasingly powerful monopoly over wealth and freedom of action though increased control was inevitable as well as inexorable.
Republicans and Democrats represent the illusion of consumer choice and the motive force of equilibrium within American politics, but the underlying reality is a functioning monopoly that by its very nature must expand control, to do otherwise would invite competition, entail risk to the owners (the politicians and the Partys), create constant uncertainty. Control generates the need and the justification for more control – no constraints are good constraints, remember? And each succeeding generation of controllers expends its energy and talent extending that very same control into new areas, human beings seldom remain statically content, they intuitively know resting on your laurels leads to stagnation followed by eventual annihilation.
Constitutional checks and balances are the constraints within our democracy per the political theorists, but monopolies abhor constraints of any kind, the goal is to eliminate them, not work toward an acceptable equilibrium. Critics of this observation smugly point out the nature of government is monopoly by definition, you can’t very well decide to use some other country’s armed forces, you can’t realistically pick from among competing judges and court jurisdictions. Your hypothetical neighbors, Dick and Jane, agree wholeheartedly with that rationalization and conclude if government is a monopoly then it may as well be a powerful one.
Pat,
I apologize for the length, but you address several points and I would like to respond in kind. I believe your description of Dick and Jane is apt. At the local level I believe there is much both political philosophies can agree with. In fact on my campaign web site; http://www.billwaveringcampaign.com I say; “I believe that at the county level; the labels democrat, republican, and independent are merely the words used to divide a ballot. At this level we all desire the same things. We want someone that will treat our hard earned money in the same manner we treat it ourselves. We all desire our public officials to budget our tax dollars with the same amount of diligence and care that we all take with our personal finances. We all believe that in order to fund the top priorities a certain amount of discipline must accompany spending.”
I’ve also independently verified another of your points since my campaign began. “…what we believe the role of government should be shapes our decisions…” This is invariably the issue. If you can get past the rhetoric, and by that I mean deliberate with a democrat or a liberal, you’ll find that there is much common ground. Our methods regarding how to accomplish the solution may vary; one being more free market oriented and the other being more government oversight oriented: But both desire the same result, a country where anyone who genuinely tries ought to get a fair shake. We desire a country that utilizes its wealth to provide for those who, through no fault of their own find themselves in dire straights.
My personal opinion is that the problems are the progressives. All people tend to pigeon-hole people, divide them into sub-groups that allow them to gauge personalities and understand them in light of their own ideological philosophy. I divide left and right into three sub-groups. Hey, it works for me. On the right there are the republicans, the conservatives and the elementalists. On the left, there are the democrats, the liberals, and the progressives. The following descriptions fit my life experience extremely well.
Democrats and Republicans – These are the least of, or the most basic of the competing political philosophies. These people are usually so busy with the ups and downs of daily life that they have little time to actually devote to ideological contemplation. They live and die by the sound bite. They feel patriotic enough that they believe they must vote, but pay little attention until the last minute. They make up about 40% of each side of the electorate.
Liberals and conservatives – These are the thinkers; some more sophisticated than others, but people who genuinely care nonetheless. They are the debaters, the ones who actually try to be as informed as possible. The ones that are likely to verify a counterpoint with a little research, and the ones most likely to change a point of view in the face of logical persuasive discussion. They make up about 40% of both sides of the electorate
Progressives and elementialists – These are the kool-aide drinking lock-step warriors of political activism. Topics such as abortion, gay marriage, gun rights, taxes, religious expression; take your pick lead to conflict. Just raising any of these topics invokes an overly expressive, passionate response in these people. Disagreement with even the slightest portion of what they believe to be the optimum solution to the issue, either way, immediately causes them to descend into a spittle flinging tirade! You are vilified, insulted, denigrated. Your disagreement borders on heresy and you must be destroyed along with your argument. Discussion is impossible. Common ground is non-existent. These comprise the remaining 20% of the population.
No political philosophy enjoys a clear majority. In fact, people move in and out of these groups during life much the same as people move in and out of different economic strata during life. How life is affecting them has some bearing on what faction of the political spectrum they may occupy.
I agree with your observation that there is a “…lack of equilibrium.” Allow me to elucidate. I believe that one of the reasons that the EU has drifted so far toward the ‘social democracy’ area of the political spectrum is that since the end of WW II they, and we, made choices that allowed this to happen. Reducing politics to its essence, it’s always an argument over the cliché ‘butter or guns’. We emerged from WW II as the perennial superpower of the planet. We made the choice for Europe. We decided to shoulder the burden of the defense of the free world, allowing all those governments to almost completely dispense with guns and concentrate on butter. If people never have to consider the possibility of defending their country, their way of life, they focus their wealth on comfort. How many nations really have the ability anymore to project power, over whelming power across the planet? As a nation’s political leaders become more inwardly focused is it any wonder that its people develop a national case of narcissism?
It happened to us as well. We can not only project political power to any corner of the planet, without effort we send our economic, social, business, fashion, and entertainment options as well. We don’t even have to do anything. For three generations, no matter what other political leaders actually ever mouthed in assemblies like the G-8, the UN, or any other public forum; no one want to rile up the Americans like the Japanese did three generations ago.
We’ve also changed. The people who struggled, both at home and abroad to first build the nation, then build that nation’s stature are gone; replaced by a generation that has no experience regarding want, need, or strife. For the overwhelming majority of us, this is our right, our inheritance. We live in the most successful national republic ever conceived by man. We were given our place at the pinnacle of civilizational accomplishment by birth.
Enter the progressives. While those of us on the right are quickly able to identify and isolate those of us of the ‘elementialist’ persuasion; progressives are more difficult to identify. You may access a piece I posted about a month ago on IC entitled “The Evolution” http://www.intellectualconservative.com/author/bill-wavering/
for a view on how I believe the progressive movement operates to this day.
Now let’s begin the discussion of political equilibrium. As countries concentrate more wealth real questions arise as to how to invest that wealth. When a clear majority can afford steak, we begin to concern ourselves with those who must endure a diet of pasta. People who can afford to move from the congestion of the city continue to feel concern for the plight of those who cannot. Allow me a short anecdote. We have some friends who recently moved here from California. They are liberals who nonetheless left the state because of the fiscal nightmare liberals have foisted upon that state due to their belief system. They decry the added taxes, the expenses, the minute rules and regulations regarding property use, rising populations of illegals, crime, and runaway spending.
Since they’ve been here in Arkansas, I’ve heard them, on one occasion or another ask; “Well why don’t Arkansas citizens support a living wage? Why should my neighbor be allowed to just set fire to a pile of leaves whenever he wants to? How come the property next door has two trailers, five broken down cars, and a refrigerator on their porch is allowed to do such unsightly things?” They are like a cancer. They really have no idea that the culmination of all their questions is what turned California into a place they finally decided they couldn’t live with anymore. But as soon as they resettle, they think they want to begin the entire process anew. The point is that the unintended consequences of good intentions are invisible to those who practice unbridled compassion.
Full time politicians step into this void to ‘assist’ those with these, and other, desires. Look at the money it takes to retain office. I believe the founders never contemplated the idea of politician becoming a full-time position, but it has. I believe I am part of the resurgence of the citizen legislator; a person who agrees to place a portion of his life on temporary hold in order to temporarily serve his community. The overwhelming majority of politicians are interested only in the perpetuation of their power. They do this by buying votes. They purchase these votes through tax policy, domestic program policy, and foreign policy. They sell their support to the highest contributors.
Mature industries get tax breaks, or their competitors get tax hikes. Special interest groups get favorable treatment, or competing groups reap derision. The most gracious contributors receive the most gracious treatment. The progressives know how to play this game well.
Over two generations ago a progressive activist named Saul Alinsky, the Sun Tsu of political activism; put his method to paper. Rules for Radicals is the progressive bible. This is the road map progressives follow in order to achieve their goal, the secular perfection of Man here on earth.
They will utilize any tactic, commandeer any organization, plead, cajole, discuss or destroy as the situation requires. Enough people focused on the plight Natoma Canfield will sell health care. But no one knows of the story of my parents, who spent almost a half million dollars they’d accumulated over a lifetime in attempts to extend their lives by opting for treatments uncovered by Medicare.
Everybody knows of the grisly death of Matthew Shepard, but who remembers Jessie Durkhising? There are numerous examples across the spectrum regarding all facets life in this country where progressives have been allowed to frame the debate, to dictate the terms of the conflict, to play to the emotions of those who only focus on the sound bite. This is the majority they achieve. Forty plus twenty is a majority.
In this very post I attempt to describe battlefield; centralized government control versus individual liberty. Being truly independent requires that you, as an individual or a group (company, organization, club, etc.) be allowed to fail. No entrepreneur that I personally know of ever succeeded on the first attempt. No person I know of has ever had a perfect record of accomplishment. Failure breeds experience, experience breeds knowledge, knowledge breeds success.
You say; “Constitutional checks and balances are the constraints within our democracy per the political theorists, but monopolies abhor constraints of any kind, the goal is to eliminate them, not work toward an acceptable equilibrium.”
Progressives sell the message of the impossibility of failure; but the road to such comfort goes through the city of ‘don’t-ever-try’. The message is you cannot possibly map an easy life to success and it’s true. But you cannot even savor success if you don’t know failure. Progressives sell the ‘removal of constraint’, the perfection of Man. But the price is the destruction of the human spirit. It is our duty to voice the flaw in this argument. Man should strive for perfection, all the while knowing in his heart he will not achieve it. It is the journey that is the reward. The equality of misery is not perfection, nor is it achievement.
Hi Bill, all very interesting. I was going to comment on your focus on what would, under normal analysis, be a tiny minority of the left – one which I believe wields little power, and which is not nearly as militant now as past generations – but I notice you preempted my attack nicely with that “20+40″ bit. Not.
You’re trying to trick us with math, or else revealing the quality of Arkansas education. You began by describing political persuasion percentages by party, you said “each side of the electorate,” so “20+40″ is sixty percent of Democratic voters, which would be less than 35 percent of the population even if we included non-voters, far short of a majority – at least in my state.
The other problem is that your distinction between Democrat and Liberal is not one of political philosophy, but engagement. Under your analysis, the major distinction between Dems and Libs is one is “too busy” be be politically aware and cognitively argumentative, even though they hold almost identical political opinions.
Under your theory, Dick and Jane could be either Democrats or a Liberals, depending on whether they read the political headlines every day.
I would personally make the political distinction that legislative Democrats, at any rate, are more of the “Blue Dog” corporatist persuasion, are among the corrupted political class you describe, and do not often represent the views of their actual constituents, except where social pandering is in order.
Among the Democratic voting population, I’d put the number of un-engaged, but politically and socially on the left to be more like 60-70%; the engaged, blog reading, argument making to be more like 10-15% tops, and the radical, progressive if you like, the remaining 15-20.
If progressives had the real political power you ascribe to them, single payer – Medicare for all – wouldn’t have been dismissed so easily.
Chasm,
Glad to see you’ve rejoined the fray. As per my usual habit, we’ll take your points one at a time.
“I was going to comment on your focus on what would, under normal analysis, be a tiny minority of the left – one which I believe wields little power, and which is not nearly as militant now as past generations” Little power eh? In the last fourteen months this ‘minority’ now owns two car companies, the largest insurance company on the planet, several investment banks, and is on the cusp of solidifying control over the medial system of the United States. This same aforementioned comment will cover the ‘not nearly as militant’ portion of your statement as well.
“You’re trying to trick us with math, or else revealing the quality of Arkansas education.” I’m doing neither. First it doesn’t matter what the percentage of the population is. Conventional wisdom says this is a center-right country but that certainly doesn’t represent the current makeup of the legislative bodies in Washington. What matters is who turns out to vote. My cousin is a life long UAW member. He’s proud of the fact that the 50 or so members who actually went to the union meetings were the ones that set negotiating policy for all 1,200 plant workers. As for Arkansas education, I do indeed reside in Arkansas but was raised in Illinois.
“Under your theory, Dick and Jane could be either Democrats or a Liberals, depending on whether they read the political headlines every day.” This is true. I did mention that people moved in and out of these groups just as people migrate in and out of economic groups. I do agree with your statement of engagement.
If legislative democrats were of the ‘blue dog’ persuasion we wouldn’t have a $1.4 trillion deficit, nor would they merely be called a collation. I believe I’ve observed in conversations we’ve conducted before that you yourself cannot even discern when your political belief on a certain issue has been co-opted by those of a more decidedly progressive bent. As long as you agree to be herded in the correct direction you’ll not see their invisible hand. The difference is that they will not attempt to snap you back to reality if you go too far, they will demand you correct your course when you fail to go far enough.
And finally; “If progressives had the real political power you ascribe to them, single payer – Medicare for all – wouldn’t have been dismissed so easily.”
Do you call a fourteen month struggle easily dismissed? The brass ring is single payer. All the single payer advocates are even now collecting promises from the Speaker that we will fix that little oversight later. How do you think they got them on board? It’s a matter of; “OK we’ll agree to the bill even though it only destroys insurance companies a little at a time. I can wait another election cycle or two to get my final reward.”
If this health care bill isn’t struck down by the courts; I’ll bet you lunch we have single payer in this country by 2020. They always think long term.
“In the last fourteen months this ‘minority’ now owns two car companies, the largest insurance company on the planet, several investment banks, and is on the cusp of solidifying control over the medial system of the United States. This same aforementioned comment will cover the ‘not nearly as militant’ portion of your statement as well.”
The purchase of the banks and AIG occurred under Bush – but the beneficiaries of these purchases were the banks and Goldman Sachs, not the government – indeed, these moves added to the debt, but to the benefit of wall st, not the people, or the left. GM happened under Obama, but would the collapse of a major employer have been a good economic move, much less a political one?
You make this stuff sound like a nefarious plot to rule the world with bureaucracy, but the fact is, the banksters took advantage of their leverage and got their deal done… we the people had no leverage, so in the end we pay. We got screwed, to be sure, but the left neither exerted nor acquired any political capitol. You act like the CEO’s at General Motors would have preferred their companies collapse and die.
“First it doesn’t matter what the percentage of the population is.” Well, no, it does matter because you were arguing that a majority was colluding to enact the far-left agenda (as you see it). The fact that your distinction between Democrat and Liberal is no difference means that that’s 80% of Democratic voters right there – 80% has no need to enact or support the policies of the fringe 20%, which wields no leverage or power except in extreme circumstances.
I would argue that Kucinich is the most ‘progressive’ legislator out there, and he mattered not one whit during the debate, his capitulation easily predicted.
“If legislative democrats were of the ‘blue dog’ persuasion we wouldn’t have a $1.4 trillion deficit…” Yes we would, because driving up the deficit without regard is something Blue Dogs colluded with Republicans to do during Bush’s tenure. Blue Dogs voted for the surplus killing tax cuts, off-the-budget funding of both wars, tax cuts again, NCLB, Medicare reform, Bankruptcy and Credit Card ‘reform’ as well as the relaxing of financial regulations that helped bring down all those entities we now own. The Blue Dogs are enemies of the Left precisely because they enabled all the business friendly, working class crushing, deficit creating policies of the Bush years.
There’s two distinctions that need to be made with regards to single payer. The fist is that because single payer is the most ‘socialistic’ and thus, leftist, position there is on healthcare, that doesn’t mean that all those who support or admire its’ structure are socialists by nature, or that they necessarily advocate similar intrusion into other market areas. Many ‘Liberals’ and ‘Democrats’ support SP because, in the special case of healthcare, where the ‘market’ is not supply-demand, but I demand you supply now or I die, there is social policy logic and economic efficiencies that exist under such a system that they conclude our country would be more competitive as well as healthy. These voters would be much less likely to support nationalization of oil companies, for example, than true socialists or even the ‘progressives’ you describe.
The second point is there’s a difference between single payer and the public option. I confused things a bit, and I regretted it immediately after posting, by calling the public option, “Medicare for All.” This is wrong. Medicare for all would be single payer – you go to your doctor and the government pays the bill. This idea was never seriously debated, and was openly mocked as the ‘far left’ position throughout the debate. It was the position that Kucinich so bravely stood up for… before he caved to reality, as he was correct to do.
The Public Option, which Pelosi recently tried to tease us with, and which is the far more widely supported idea among the ‘Democrat/Liberal’ for adoption in our system, is “Medicare for those that want to buy-in.” It means that when you, the customer, goes to the insurance exchange website to buy insurance, one of the solutions vying for your dollars is, in effect, Medicare. If Medicare can provide better coverage for less, you might buy it. If not, you probably wouldn’t. That’s a market based solution with the government as a competitor.
If you foresee Medicare driving the insurance companies out of business, then they probably aren’t being efficient with your dollars in the first place.
One interesting question that comes to mind is this: do you support the idea that companies should be able to make as much profit as they can by gambling on peoples’ health? That is the status quo – they try and stack the deck by denying coverage – but insurance for profit is essentially a wager that you won’t get cancer or have a car accident. Or that if you do, they can legally find a way not to pay for your treatment before you die. Is this your idea of the freedom of the market?
One of the provisions, I believe, of the bill is a cap on the margin companies are allowed to skim as middlemen to our doctors. Does this sound like a fair idea to you, or should corporations be allowed to continue to post massive profits gambling on the health of your family?
Correction: rather than a ‘cap on margins,’ that I mentioned, I believe what is being debated is a minimum amount of revenues be dedicated to actually providing health care services, rather than overhead CEO salaries, and dividends. This is a difference, and I regret my inarticulate, and possibly misleading, rendering.
But the question remains, is it too ‘socialistic’ to re-write business rules to that the business model of healthcare provision more effectively provides healthcare, rather than exist to deny coverage but provide dividends?
Maybe so. We shall see. As for your contention that we will have SP in nine years, well, several things would have to happen. First, after this bill becomes law, existing insurance companies will have to flagrantly raise rates, violate provisions, sue to overturn provisions and then commit some televised atrocity against a telegenic citizen with a bad case, all of which must conspire to convince a weary populace to demand a Public Option. This last bit can’t even happen without the consent of the media, so I’m half-kidding, but nothing will convince either the public or the pols from addressing this issue again in the near future barring crisis or outrageous industry abuse – including revelation of bombshell loopholes yet to be exploited which they already know are there.
This bill is a massive giveaway to the insurance companies – not a ‘takeover’ by government – they get tens of millions of young, healthy customers and people who believe they are healthy enough not to need coverage – $$$.
So, after a massive public outcry against industry abuse of this new system, the Public Option could conceivably become law. But to get to Single Payer from there is still a pretty big step. First, a Government program – with a Republican constituency watching every move and counting every dollar – would have to be so efficient, that it could undersell every insurance company in the country, causing them to hemorrhage clients and profits, leading to massive insurance industry collapse.
You can argue that the government can afford to run it’s program at a deficit, and thus just wait the competition out, but that would require acquiescence of Congress, the watchdogs (the people) and the courts, as assuredly the insurance co’s would sue. After this, with the field empty, Government would be the only player left, and thus… Single Payer.
All possible, I suppose, but highly, highly unlikely.
Mmmmm, samitches.
Bill, had to chuckle at your description of your new neighbors from California, as a long term resident of California, I know what you mean. However, you’re somewhat fortunate they’re not refugees from New York, the City in particular. A few years back, my wife and I were part of a group of Californians vacationing in Cancun, the first few days were idyllic – warm ocean, clear, sunny skies, drinking those cocktails from the coconut shell while patronizing the swim up bar – but then the New York City crowd and their group tour blew into the resort – the noise level immediately increased 200% – where previously laid back Californians had languidly waited their turn at the breakfast buffet, the New Yorkers pushed and shoved in what turned out to be their habitually rude fashion, all the while voicing a constant stream of complaints at a volume level that could be heard deep within the jungle. And these strangely frantic Americans were wound tighter than a drum, they definitely needed the vacation time, however, we Californians collectively hoped they would continue to favor Mexico over California as their destination of choice.
Yet these New Yorkers were Americans with American values. Their New York City culture no doubt masked their deeply held beliefs regarding our country’s future and what the role of government should be. But I think it’s a mistake to put too much emphasis on the concerns of the moment and the position of different Americans on this or that political issue. It’s very possible the lack of equilibrium in government is directly tied to human nature – our inability to control force without abusing both control and our fellow citizens in the process. And government at its most fundamental level is the use of force to control citizens. Are we being lovingly guided like a parent guides his child, with the occasional discipline being administered for our own good? Maybe that’s how we choose to see it, but the parent controls the child and this control is always backed up by the threat of force – however, loving the parent, however reluctant to use force, the force is there, implicit within the relationship.
Government, with its monopoly on force, will always tend to extend control but the interesting observation is the consistency with which this control is extended generation after generation of Americans – whether you’re in the Know-Nothing Party of yesteryear or the Libertarian Party of today, the casual oppression by government, the perceived abuse of power has been ongoing for decades. And I don’t think the Founding Fathers ever believed the Constitution would guarantee our government must achieve equilibrium and remain in a steady state from then on. More than likely, these intelligent men relied on parents to teach their children how to be free citizens, relied on them to instruct the next generation in the religious values needed to curb the abuse of force. And I believe they also realized nothing, particularly ideals, can stop the government’s extension of control over its citizens – in a balanced universe, only force, the violent push back against government can restore equilibrium.
And the government’s control will continue to be extended in the future but heading off in new directions – we’ll go beyond our traditional geographic boundaries with World Government, World Justice, World Rights – left alone nothing can stop this process, future generations of Americans won’t remain satisfied when some ideal state of Liberal benevolence through government control is reached, the extension of control isn’t driven by a political agenda – a journey, not a destination, it operates at a much more primitive level within the human psyche. Americans don’t wish to believe that it can be that primitive, can be that ugly and uncontrollable – rather, we believe it’s simply about Health Care, Immigration Reform, Equal Opportunity, Bailing Out Wall St. – we consciously deny our collective realization that the only means to reverse the process, to restore an equilibrium is through citizens applying naked force to the present government and to those among our fellow citizens who support the present government – call it revolution, Civil War, call it what you will, but only force can resist force.
Many Americans deny the cure must be, and can only be, simple force – only raw force is capable of counteracting the greed and lust for power which drives every government to extend control far beyond what is necessary – we think surely there must be a peaceful, non-violent solution to reverse this creeping drift toward total government control – perhaps a new Constitution, stricter term limits, campaign finance reform, reducing the Supreme Court’s authority, the list of “maybe this, possibly that” solutions goes on and on. But, like a glacier moving toward the ocean, the process will remain unstoppable, the government’s monopoly on force will always seek to ignore equilibrium and extend control over its children – you can call the process creeping socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism – but that’s merely applying a comforting label to a mystery, naming a power and sociological force we can neither understand nor control.
Chasm,
The buyouts of the banks and AIG may have started under Bush, but were completed under Obama, and it is the Obama administration that has benefited from the leverage bought with those taxpayer dollars. I believe that both the American taxpayer would have benefited a lot more if GM had gone into bankruptcy; as it would have provided a mortal blow to the UAW. I also believe that the GM executive management would have preferred bankruptcy to ending up with a company majority owned by the Autoworkers Union. You may emerge from bankruptcy, but you never emerge from union control. I find it really ironic that the UAW is now a majority shareholder in GM (for its UNSECURED debt by the way) when it was the pension and benefit programs demanded by that very same union that drove the company to the brink in the first place.
When George Bush left office the debt was at an astonishing $500 billion. After 14 months under Obama billions is a number that trips lightly off the tongue. It’s that new number ‘trillions’ that we are having trouble wrapping our brains around. $1.4 trillion in fourteen months. Under George Bush we accumulated debt at the rate of just over $5,208,000,000. Say it out loud please over 5 billion 208 million dollars a month! Absolutely incredible. Since Barack Obama has taken office, he’s spent money at the rate of $100,000,000,000 per month. Now say that aloud. 100 billion dollars per month; 20 times the rate of his predecessor!
As far as health care is concerned. This current legislation is a disaster of unintended consequences. You say that this bill will be a windfall for insurance companies; how? Will it provide money in the form of new premiums from young people who will buy insurance but not use it much? Highly doubtful. Many young people who cannot afford insurance now will not be buying insurance any time soon, particularly since they can wait to purchase insurance until they need it because of the prohibition against pre-existing conditions.
Chances are better that insurance companies will be flooded with people with pre-existing conditions; but under this bill they will not be allowed to raise rates. So if costs go up and income stays the same, even you can figure out what happens to the bottom line. Everyone demonizes insurance companies. Who do those profits go to? Shareholders. Who are the shareholders? Teachers, firemen, union workers, nurses, doctors, lawyers, farmers, bricklayers, and anyone else who has a managed 401k that the money managers invest retirement dollars for. So what if ten of fifteen executives get paid tens of millions a year. How much money should an executive be ALLOWED to make for managing a multi-billion dollar company. Companies arent’ formed to provide services, they are formed to make money. When a company no longer makes money it goes under. Oh I forgot, unless a union doesn’t want it to go under; then Obama ‘rescues’ it and fires the Chairman. Imagine that the President of the United States deciding who should manage a company? Astounding!
You say; “…or should corporations be allowed to continue to post massive profits gambling on the health of your family?” The average percentage of net profit for a health insurance company is 2.2% 2.2 cents on each dollar. Kellogg’s Cereal makes 6%, Frito Lay makes 8%. How come we’ve not been arguing over their obscene profit margins in the Houses of Congress for the last year? Because the progressives don’t want to control the cereal or potato chip industry, they want control over the health care industry.
As long as you prohibit the insurance companies from raising rates, and demanding they cover all sorts of ridiculous things like aroma therapy, tattoo removal, sex reassignment surgery; and forcing the overwhelming majority of the people to pay insurance rates to cover these things although they’ll never use them, costs will continue to escalate.
This is why premiums go up. Insurance companies must cover each and every thing any state agency says it must or they cannot do business there. What do you think would happen to insurance premiums if insurance companies were allowed to tailor a health policy like they can tailor an auto policy? I want a health policy where I can choose the deductible, where I can choose what coverage I want to pay for, and most importantly, I can exclude the purchase of coverage for stuff my family will NEVER USE.
My wife and I are both in our middle fifties; she had a hysterectomy 20 years ago. So can you tell me why on God’s Green Earth a portion of my insurance premium goes for obstetrics services and another monthly portion goes for pediatrics? Not to mention the crap we have to be covered for that I outlined above. I’d rather, at my age, pay for regular cancer screenings. But I can’t choose. I have to pay for all that junk I will never use under the present rules.
This health care bill is designed, on purpose, to drive insurance companies out of business, eventually leaving no one but the federal government to pick up the slack. This is as plain as the nose on your face.
I’m certain I’ve said this before. But the control the federal government exerts over the public schools is ubiquitous. They determine the curriculum, they determine what can be and not be said a graduation, what clubs are sanctioned, which are excluded, who can pray (Muslims) and who cannot. Their average contribution to any public school district’s budget is 7 cents on the dollar. So; just how much control do you believe that the federal government will eventually want over each and every aspect of all of our lives in return for 100% of a health care premium?
Pat,
You say; “And I don’t think the Founding Fathers ever believed the Constitution would guarantee our government must achieve equilibrium and remain in a steady state from then on.” I agree, nothing in this world is ‘static’ or in equilibrium as you say. I’m certain the Founder’s believed that the pendulum would swing toward both sides. Political tendencies will wax and wane among an informed and free people. However, when the debate is mis-framed, when debate itself is discouraged, when reasonable disagreement is painted as unpatriotic, by either side, dialog is destroyed.
I don’t think it may be denied that while this pendulum does indeed swing to both sides, it is the support of this device that has been moving steadily leftward for generations. The result of this is while it looks as if this system has achieved some type of ‘steady state’ in actuality, because of the leftward motion of the support; the rightmost position of the arc never achieves the measurement it did during the previous period. This results in a slow march leftward of the political condition. One only has to look at the titles of the legislation. The more freedom loving and liberating the title, the more, in my opinion, you can guarantee the stricture of the collar. A wonderfully intelligent man once opined; “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.”
You state; “the government’s monopoly on force will always seek to ignore equilibrium and extend control over its children.” Then continue with; “Many Americans deny the cure must be, and can only be, simple force – only raw force is capable of counteracting the greed and lust for power which drives every government to extend control far beyond what is necessary.” Could this be the original intent of the Jefferson quotation “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants?” Liberty includes the right to fail. We’ve bastardized that into the right to never fail.
It seem as if there comes a time when government is no longer engaged in the care of its ‘children’ and becomes more interested in the perpetuation of the state. A ‘progressive’ income tax that stifles reinvestment, bank bailouts that save Wall Street at the expense of Main Street, the upending of 100 years of bankruptcy law to place unsecured creditors before secured creditors, the assignation of federal bureaucracy to define as a pollutant a gas literally every living, walking thing exhales. The removal of wealth from the economic engine of the country because lawmakers believe they can make better choices than the market. The issuance of Treasury Notes in such amounts that if all short term debt were to be called the US could only pay 20¢ on the dollar.
A straightforward constitutional enumeration of the population evolves into the recording of the GPS location of every door of every domicile. The form itself is so detailed that a mental picture of the house, the occupants, their race, the surrounding property, and the relative wealth and comfort of those occupants may be easily estimated from the answers. Why the requirement for such a level of detail? I’m currently employed as the Master Planner for the National Guard in my state. We have GPS information on every facility in the state. The accuracy is within a half-inch. It is labeled ‘restricted access’, can you imagine why?
Immigration reform in the form of amnesty; killed in 2008 by a vocal citizenry, is being reborn in a bi-partisan form by Senators Lindsay Graham and Chuck Schumer. Apparently, much the same as murder, each time you willfully ignore the voice of the people, as in health care, it becomes easier to challenge their feelings on the next occasion. The powers-that-be in Washington know there is no match for the force they may bring to bear. I spoke out against the Patriot Act when it was first debated; saying that such power in the hands of a Chief Executive would eventually come to ill. Just how much opposition will Washington put up with from its people before the velvet hand becomes the iron fist?
Mull this over for a time. Tell me where you think we are.
Well, you’re not going to get any agreement from me on unions. My industry fought very hard to unionize, and health care is already part of my pay package. The rising cost of healthcare is a major issue, obviously, of all contract negotiations.
Unionization was a major factor of the rise of the mid-century middle class, and the dismantling of them over the past 30 years a cause of the disintegration of such. Conservatives hate unions for two reasons: they allow workers leverage in negotiations, and they give the middle class a base of support. That’s no mystery if you’re a pawn of big business. The mystery is why hard working middle class Americans support Republicans who sell them out.
As far a George Bush’s deficit, Obama made the dumb move of actually moving the cost of two wars on to the budget – something Bush never did – which naturally gives the mathematically challenged the ammunition they need to mis-represent numbers. Another thing, we just went through a massive contraction of our economy, and so of course revenues are down. The great power of the federal government is, as we are repeatedly told whenever a Republican is in the Oval Office, “deficits don’t matter.”
Another thing: On Oct 30, 1992, just before Clinton was elected, the total national debt was $4,064,620,655,521.66. On that date in 2000, it was $5,674,178,209,886.86, an increase of about 39%. George Bush and the Republicans took that number and nearly doubled it (82%) to %10,024,724,896,912.49.
It took 30 years for tax-cut-but-spend-on-a-bender Republicans to totally wreck the economy. It’s going to take Obama and the Dems a little more than a year to try and save it.
“Many young people who cannot afford insurance now will not be buying insurance any time soon”
“Any time soon” being 2014, when even the healthy young (over age 26) will be mandated to buy insurance from a private company.
“The average percentage of net profit for a health insurance company is 2.2%”
Where are you getting your numbers? A quick Goggle of Healthsouth (HLS) reveals a net margin of 7.92. Cigna’s net is 7.14. That’s the vig on your health, budddy, 7-8%.
There was a time, back in the vaunted 50′s that Conservatives wax on about, when hospitals were required to be non-profit. That’s one of the reasons your Church got into the business in a big way – no one else wanted to run hospitals for no profit. It wasn’t until the de-regulation craze of the 80′s (another Reagan/Republican initiative) that corporations began buying up previously charitable enterprises and taking there cut.
Don’t you feel like a sucker (I know I do) knowing that the company that enables your access to healthcare is not doing so out of a concern for your health, but because you represent a potential raise of dividends? That’s a conflict of interest that I’m not really comfortable putting my life into, yet I am forced to by our system.
“I want a health policy where I can choose the deductible, where I can choose what coverage I want to pay for, and most importantly, I can exclude the purchase of coverage for stuff my family will NEVER USE.”
I believe this is part of the bill – there is a minimum coverage floor, and I guess I’m just assuming that it won’t cover all that much, really.
“My wife and I are both in our middle fifties; she had a hysterectomy 20 years ago. So can you tell me why on God’s Green Earth a portion of my insurance premium goes for obstetrics services and another monthly portion goes for pediatrics? ”
For the same reason a portion of the premiums of a a sterile man paid for your wife’s hysterectomy 20 years ago. For the same reason my auto insurance premiums are being used to settle someone elses’ lawsuit right now. That pretty much is the functional definition of ‘insurance.’
“This health care bill is designed, on purpose, to drive insurance companies out of business, eventually leaving no one but the federal government to pick up the slack.”
I’m not quite ready to give you the ‘on purpose,’ but after yesterdays’ post I read an interesting scenario by Megan McArdle, over at The Atlantic. I don’t give allot of credit to Megan normally, and I haven’t check around to see if her fears are unwarranted, but her worry was much more plausible than the one I mapped out: basically, her fear is that the plan dumps too many of the poor onto Medicaid, creating serious budget problems for the states, many of which then either default or end their Medicaid programs (as Arizona is doing now), thus dumpling them back into the Feds lap, and Medicare.
This is a particularly scary scenario if we don’t get the economy rolling again. I still don’t think it will result in single payer by 2020, but I ain’t ordering samitches yet.
“But the control the federal government exerts over the public schools is ubiquitous.”
It’s interesting that you say that, because I was just reading an article yesterday pointing out that just 2% of the federal budget goes to education. Most of the money spent on K-12 education comes from the states, and they together with local school boards set the curriculum (along with the Texas textbook board, of course). NCLB and other atrocities may demand stupid testing regimes, but by and large, the Federal Government does not provide education or much of the educational funding.
“They determine the curriculum, they determine what can be and not be said a graduation, what clubs are sanctioned, which are excluded, who can pray (Muslims) and who cannot. ”
No, “they” do not do any of this. Access to clubs and such may or may not have been litigated at some point, and there are definitely educational standards that they try and enforce, but as we just saw in Texas, its local boards that determine the curriculum.
And you’re really going to have to explain what you mean by saying Muslims are “allowed” to pray while implicating Christians are not. As far as I know, anyone can “pray” at school, on their own time. Christians always gathered to pray at lunch at my high school. But no one, even Muslims, are allowed to pray during class being led by a teacher. It’s the “in class led by a teacher” part that’s a no-no.
“So; just how much control do you believe that the federal government will eventually want over each and every aspect of all of our lives in return for 100% of a health care premium?”
Dunno, but it’ll be less control than corporations demand for those same premiums. They control my GF’s life pretty hardcore right now, in that they won’t let her purchase a policy for any price that would treat the pain she lives in on a day to day basis. Being able to prevent someone from living a fulfilling, productive life because it would hurt your bottom line is awesome control, and I’m sick of it.
Two more points regarding “control.” The Government “took over” the health care of American citizens when it started requiring, for instance, an M.D. from a certified medical university before one is allowed to treat patients, instead of allowing anyone with a truck full of ‘medicine’ to treat anyone who they could convince to pay.
You talk about quacks and shyster medicines being payed for by government controlled system, but that’s exactly what we’d get – and had back in the day – if we had a completely private, deregulated medical system.
Next, what we have now isn’t free in any sense of the word. If health care were a normal supply-demand, market based system, then when I suffer a heart attack I’d have to/get to go to PriceLineMed.com or some such site, and search for the cheapest local ambulance that could take me from home to the nearest hospital with the best cost/heart-attack recovery ratio, and the click a few boxes and hope I don’t die before I get to “send.” Alternately, I suppose they could use the moving and shipping model, which as I have discovered, involves inputting my number into a centralized bidding system whereby I could then field phone offers from various ambulance companies as I lie on the floor.
Of course, this is all ridiculous. If I have a heart attack after finishing this post, all I have to have is a card in my pocket with my insurance number on it and I’ll be taken to the nearest emergency room and I’m good. And if I didn’t have a card, I’d probably go anyway. And if I couldn’t pay, you – the taxpayer – would pay anyway. Only much much expensive paperwork would be required first.
Finally, a word about government welfare. In 2005, Arkansas received $1.41 for every dollar sent to Washington in federal taxes (14th, Go Alaska! #1 @ 1.84). California received $.78. In general it is true that the more rural a state is, the more welfare it takes. The big, populous, rich states support rural, poorer states. If the tea party spent more time advocating an end to state welfare – an thus the lessening of the federal leverage – and so that my state didn’t have to support your state, I’d be more impressed with their arguments.
For your sake, I wouldn’t agree with them. But at least I could take them seriously as idealists.
Chasm,
You really need to shed this ‘share the wealth’ attitude of yours. I don’t really understand who you think owes you anything. Companies don’t exist to guarantee your lifestyle. Despite your obvious belief, no one gets up one morning and says; “I want to start an entertainments company so Chasm can have a house and health care.”
Another thing about health care. You say: “… They control my GF’s life pretty hardcore right now, in that they won’t let her purchase a policy for any price that would treat the pain she lives in on a day to day basis.” Who is “they”? I don’t believe you understand the first thing about an entity ‘controlling’ someone’s life. Let’s enlighten you as to how government run health care ‘controls’ the lives of those you love.
I originally moved to the State of Arkansas in order to care for my ailing parents. This is truly a double edged sword. On the one hand I believe I was given a jewel beyond price as I received four years of close contact with my Father and more with my Mother (she lived for ten). The other edge is that you have to watch them die.
I watched as my Father laid out countless tens of thousands of dollars of his own money to receive treatments for his stomach cancer that were denied to him by Medicare. On January 31st of 2001 he succumbed to his tumors. Dad died sixteen days before my parents 56th Wedding Anniversary, and Mother was never the same. They’d both spent a lifetime paying into these systems. Now these same systems were going to shift into ‘high gear’ in an attempt, through sheer incompetence, to separate them from as much of their accumulated wealth as possible.
At this point your vaunted Social Security system took over. We filed Dad’s death certificates with all the appropriate institutions within 10 days. Believe me; I was always scrupulous when it came to caring for my folks. On February 4th 2001 the imperial federal government transferred the Social Security payment to Mother’s checking account. On February 16th 2001 that same government contacted Mom’s financial institution, not her, and demanded the institution immediately return $1,200 dollars to the government paid to them for the month January of 2001. See Dad didn’t live out the entire month, so they wanted January’s entire payment back. Meanwhile, Mom, uncontacted by the ‘progressive’ government, is still writing checks. On February 23rd, the government contacted the bank demanding another $1,200 for the ‘overpayment’ of February’s social security. On March 3rd the social security administration, once again automatically over-deposited her monthly check. On March 5th we received her banking statement showing that she was over-drawn by $956.63 and that she owed the bank another $325 in ‘bounced check’ charges for the 13 checks that failed to clear. By March 9th when I got to the bank to attempt to unravel this for my mother; the ‘progressive’ federal government had removed another $1,200 for March. Her checking account was so screwed up that it couldn’t be balanced! We finally fixed this by withdrawing $15,000 from her savings, foregoing that interest, opening a new checking account to operate from, and placing the other $5,000 in her existing account so this insane schedule of federal deposits and withdrawals wouldn’t drive her balance negative again.
This see-saw of social security deposits and withdrawals continued until July! In July they must have finally deposited the correct amount, as they never demanded a subsequent withdrawal. At no time during this six-month debacle did the ‘progressive’ federal government EVER send any letter of explanation to my Mother. There was NO CONTACT whatsoever! Our attempts to contact them were met with disbelief and/or dreadfully discourteous conduct on the bureaucracy’s part. We closed her temporary account, and we went back to using the original checking account they originally had, without problems, for over twenty years. The final result of this was, because of the fluctuation in her accounts and the negative information reported to credit companies due to accounting balance and fee problems directly caused by the almighty social security system, Discover declined to renew her card in late 2002, so now her credit, built up over a lifetime was completely destroyed. Thanks to the ‘progressive’ federal government
We continued to care for her in her own home until November 11th of 2002 when she fell and broke her hip. There was some contention between her doctors as to whether she fell and broke her hip, or her hip shattered first due to osteoporosis.
Medicare will only pay for 30 days of rehabilitative therapy after an operation. Due to the fumbling of paperwork requirements between the ‘progressive’ federal government and the hospital, she laid there for over a month before her operation. By that time her mobility was so degraded that thirty days of therapy wasn’t nearly enough time to get her walking again. She was admitted to a nursing home. She died there five years later.
Even the best of nursing homes is no place for an aged parent. Without the surroundings of their accumulated life, they withdraw and weaken. I watched as my Mother died a piece at a time over the next fifty-one months. I went there four times each week. My wife and I spent all holidays; Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter, and birthdays at her side. She eventually lost a leg due to diabetes. During the last year of her life she wouldn’t even feed herself. I’m certain she missed her husband so much that she just wanted to let go. The fees for the nursing home were $4,600 a month. Even after her Medicare Part D discounts, her drugs were an additional $1,600 each month. That’s $234,600 in living expenses and an additional $81,600 directly ‘out-pocket’. Total for both Mom & Dad’s medical bills over the last years of their lives was $445,842.74; and they paid EVERY F*****G PENNY! The government tried their level best to ensure she and Dad left this earth as penniless as they arrived! I watched, as an unfeeling ‘progressive’ federal government did their best to thwart two of the most beautiful people on the planet at every turn just when they needed it most. Progressive safety net, my dying ass! Not only was there next to no assistance, the state was actively involved in exacerbating the problems. And, before you even suggest such a thing; this is not ‘sour grapes’ over a lost inheritance. My sister and I both still got over $300,000 each from the remaining estate. I imagine your biggest complaint is that, due to current estate tax law, the ‘progressive’ federal government had no way to seize a significant portion of the remaining wealth your ‘progressive’ federal government managed to miss while they were alive. We are both debt free, and the majority of OUR windfall is in precious metals, far from the grubby hands of your ‘progressive’ federal government.
This is how government run health care in the form of Medicare functions. It denies life extending treatments because of cost. It forces those on the other end to either take the advice of our Commander-in-Chief and; “Go home and take a pill.” or forces them to spend literally hundreds of thousands of dollars on their own behalf. And you can’t wait to be part of this meat grinder! These systems weren’t put into place to help seniors; they were put in place to help the indigent. They were deliberately created in order to help seniors BECOME indigent.
Now let’s talk budgets. Everyone knows that all spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives. You state; “It took 30 years for tax-cut-but-spend-on-a-bender Republicans to totally wreck the economy. It’s going to take Obama and the Dems a little more than a year to try and save it.” Your claim that republicans have ruined the economy over the last thirty years is sheer stupidity! How is such a claim even possible given the fact that democrats have held the distinct majority in the House from 1956 until present, with the exception of the span between 1995 and 2005? http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm I know, I know; its’ magic huh? Those nasty republicans tricked those well-meaning democrats into introducing and passing all those deficit budgets, didn’t they?
“Don’t you feel like a sucker (I know I do) knowing that the company that enables your access to healthcare is not doing so out of a concern for your health…” No I don’t’. I realize companies are created to make money, not provide social services. I’m willing to part with my earned wealth if I believe I’m buying a bargain. I told you before I should be allowed to tailor my insurance needs.
You say; ” For the same reason a portion of the premiums of a a sterile man paid for your wife’s hysterectomy 20 years ago. For the same reason my auto insurance premiums are being used to settle someone elses’ lawsuit right now. That pretty much is the functional definition of ‘insurance.’” This is pure sophistry. My bank account paid for all my wife’s bills twenty years ago. Twenty years ago I worked for a company that didn’t provide healthcare. I got a second job to pay that bill. I didn’t’ whine about the “government ought to do something.” I decided that my wife’s continued good health was worth working an extra 30 hours a week for the next three years and I did it.
My homeowner’s policy doesn’t include a free roof every ten years, does yours? Nor does my auto policy provide new tires every 25,000 miles, does yours? Why should all this stuff I’m never going to use be included in my health care? If you want aroma therapy, pay for your own. Don’t’ expect me to pick up the tab for your candles. This is a large amount of the problem here. You expect others to pay their hard earned dollars so you may enjoy benefits that you cannot personally afford.
God forbid I give up any of my leisure time to actually try to augment my income when I can just have Barack Obama put his hand in Bill’s pocket and make him pay for what I want. Why don’t you just send me your mortgage payment while you’re at it? If you don’t own a home it’s no ones fault but yours.
My wife and I decided a long time ago that we’d probably never be able to pay a mortgage on top of our other obligations; so we scrimped, saved, worked extra jobs, and ate a lot of pasta. We purchased our own place in 2000 and paid cash. I’ve had a job of one type or another literally every day of my life since I was thirteen years old. No one can convince me that I owe any part of my accumulated wealth to anyone else in order to increase their comfort. Work harder, work longer, carry two jobs, stop with the sodas and lattes. Don’t’, for one minute, think that because I have two dollars more than you that I owe you one, because I don’t
I guess there is one good thing that might come out of this health care thing. Tonight, my wife and I seriously begin talking retirement. This country has missed me on absolutely each and every bleeding heart give-away program they’ve begun in the last 30 years. Since 95% of my accumulated wealth is invisible, I can drive us to poverty level income overnight. Maybe I’ll let you pay for my health care so I can retire and stay home all day and do what I want for a change. Sound fair? You keep plugging away at your job buddy, I need you to keep working so you can pay our doctor bills.
Oh, and the prayer in school thing: Prayer in Schools http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/580789/posts Chicago Public Schools were given an official green light Wednesday to set aside a vacant room for students to pray during school hours, a policy welcomed by Muslim students whose daily prayers overlap with school hours. All they need is a hallway pass because prayer time happens during algebra, don’t’ ya’ know? Where’s the Christian prayer room huh? Oh, that’s right they can’t even use a classroom AFTER school for bible study.http://www.theprovince.com/life/Surrey+parent+fights+school+over+thwarted+Bible+study+group/2314289/story.html
Bill:
Good question on what the future holds – a question we all reflect on from time to time without any certainty and with much frustration. Historically, the government’s monopoly on force can be broken by one of two (or both) recurring patterns; the consent of the governed is lost, internal revolution, either violent or with the threat of violence, changes the existing government in a radical fashion – or external forces take advantage of a society’s accumulated weaknesses to move in, change the existing power structure and impose their own form of government backed up by force imposed from without.
Peaceful revolution, the breakup of the old Soviet Union for example, is sometimes cited as a third form of the pattern – but the Soviet Union started with a violent revolution and ended with a peaceful capitulation when Soviet leaders recognized their society was falling into stagnation as their attempt to isolate and shield their citizens from the outside world became increasingly unrealistic. It’s doubtful the Soviet leaders feared violent revolution from within as an alternative should they fail to act, their control based on force wasn’t weakening to any great degree and didn’t prompt their consent to a change. However, a sort of external force did bring about the downfall of Soviet society; the modern world, with its open communication and technical foundation, would have relegated Russia to a backwater nation, culturally isolated, technically stagnant and on a steady downward spiral. The Chinese experienced their own violent revolution, murdered or imprisoned their intellectual leaders and came to realize they would share the fate of the Soviet Union unless changes were made.
Returning to America, I have more than a passing familiarity with firearms but I’m also a little long in the tooth to man the barricades in an attempt at liberty, fraternity and equality. Like most citizens, I hope the present situation within our nation will last out my lifetime and those lifetimes of the youngest members of my family. Three or four generations hence lies beyond my mental horizon and outside my emotional focus as I suspect it is with most Americans. A little cowardly maybe, but I agree with Phil Jackson; Americans aren’t about to ferment revolution over Health Care or Immigration Reform.
As you sagely pointed out, the pendulum swings strongly left and then a little right in reaction, but the constant drift is toward socialism. However, socialism doesn’t have the boogeyman connotation it once had – we will learn to accept more and more government control, many Americans will even come to embrace intrusive government as natural and progressive in nature, just as the Europeans have done. And as Phil also pointed out, the Democrats know there will be a reaction, even a retrenchment against their current initiatives, but the net result will be a movement further left. Vestiges of Obamacare will remain firmly in place even if there is an angry reaction during the 2010 elections – the Health Care bill will serve as another stepping stone for further extension of government control. Republicans will reconcile themselves to Obamacare, identify political and financial opportunities therein for themselves and their backers – the chances of completely repealing this latest extension of control will be futile and fall away as the initial emotional reaction subsides.
The historic sociological pattern of increased government control will drive rationalizations that “things aren’t so bad, the world hasn’t ended, the actions of our government are benevolent and necessary”. The government’s monopoly on force and the apathy of the electorate will combine to nudge us further left. With the implicit position of unassailable power backed up by monopolistic force, the mechanisms of revolution against current and future intrusions is forestalled, the government itself will see to it that challenges are carefully controlled and turned into harmless byways which allow freedom of expression without any substantive change in actual government power. In effect, willful refusal to fully complete the 2010 census forms will constitute the sum of our revolutionary reaction to Obama and the Democrat’s vision.
So, if internal revolution seems highly unlikely, it leaves only external forces with the opportunity and desire to impose their monopoly of force while replacing our homegrown version. And it would be understandable to snort in derision at the thought America could be overturned by outside forces. Certainly, China isn’t moving in next week or next year; providing the majority of Chinese citizens with indoor plumbing is their more immediate goal. With China’s internal problems impeding change, it will be decades before they can replace America as the leading global power – a fact I think most Americans are banking on – we push the problem onto unknown future generations which relieves us of the need to act in the here and now.
But keep in mind the 1930’s saw China as the “sick man of Asia”, a destitute society without the ability to enforce its will on either its own citizens or the outside world of more advanced nations. They, the Chinese, have come a long way in a short time so it’s unwise to dismiss so called “primitive” societies as being without threat. If you combine an increasing apathy on our part with the willingness to carry out violent threats from what we consider primitive cultures, you parallel the situation of the Roman Empire prior to the demise of their western capitol.
Individually, the Romans suspected their own destruction as coming but could no longer muster the spirit and values that had once made them a power to be feared. Toward the end, the populace grew increasingly apathetic to their fate, increasingly reluctant, with an unwarranted pride in their society’s past accomplishments, to admit to their loss of internal fortitude and preferred to party while barbarians repeatedly blackmailed them for protection money and on one occasion after another actually invaded Rome itself to loot and burn.
So called primitive cultures do possess a power unrelated to nuclear aircraft carriers and stealth bombers – their willingness to risk their lives in pursuit of their goals can trump the technology of a society that has lost the will to protect its cultural heritage. And it’s a mistake to assume the Visigoths were as powerful as the Romans and on an equal technological footing even for those ancient times – it would amaze many Americans to learn what Roman engineering could accomplish, a little of it still remains impressive even in this age of IPODs.
Nor can we take comfort that our enemies are simply going through an “angry” stage and will eventually emerge as calmer, more civilized cultures long before they pose a real threat to us. The leader of the Visigoths told a Roman delegation: “We don’t want to be Romans, we just want what Rome has”. This knocked the Romans back on their heels, Roman citizenship and culture was a coveted prize within their Empire, not something easily obtained and to have barbarians reject its intrinsic worth shattered their illusions, both about barbarians and about themselves. We may find the goal of our enemies isn’t to reject our cultural values and humiliate us before the world – as the pundits claim. Their goal, like the Visigoths, may actually be our wealth, our continuing productive labors but under their authority and control – and to their benefit.
As Americans, we reject the notion that historical lessons apply to us, we’re a society outside of history, a unique nation that sprang fully formed from the forehead of an Olympian and we aren’t affected by the historically repeated patterns of past nations and civilizations. Ironically, the Romans felt the same way about their culture. And, increasingly, our intellectuals become alarmed over the loss of cohesion within our society, concerned by the belligerent and hostile tones of our political conversation, dismayed by the obvious fragmentation of our culture. But, these same intellectuals manage to dismiss these warning signs as merely a transition stage, a minor ripple which will dissipate when our society achieves full opportunity and justice for all – such is their blind spot and weakness – and also about the only “I told you so” satisfaction we Conservatives are likely to enjoy.
Pat,
You begin with; “However, a sort of external force did bring about the downfall of Soviet society; the modern world, with its open communication and technical foundation, would have relegated Russia to a backwater nation, culturally isolated, technically stagnant and on a steady downward spiral.” This succinctly describes the current country of Russia. They are still isolated. They aren’t pumping enough oil to assuage their spending because of the age of the equipment and the lack of current technology in both the extraction and refinement areas.
As for your next point I’m in agreement there as well. War is a young man’s game, and although I wont’ run from a fight and I will protect my property, I’m twenty five years removed from my USMC discharge. I too hope the country lasts until I pass, and what happens afterwards well… Having said that; I’m not certain my autumn years will be all that uneventful.
If someone had told me twenty years ago that I’d be sitting on 10 acres purposefully bought twenty miles from the nearest town and thirty five miles from the nearest interstate, that I had cows, hogs, and spent last weekend tilling ground for a vegetable garden while my wife took caning lessons from a spinster up the road I’d have said they were nuts. The fact of the matter is; we’ve purposefully placed ourselves in a decidedly rural, increasingly self-sufficient position over the last five years. Why? We’re nervous. We’ve rendered over 95% of our accumulated wealth ‘invisible’ and don’t’ believe that our social security or my pension will survive intact.
“…but I agree with Phil Jackson; Americans aren’t about to ferment revolution over Health Care or Immigration Reform.” I agree here to from the standpoint that there won’t be armed revolution over this. But I believe there will be revolution.
I’m pragmatic enough to understand that as subsequent generations are birthed that are less capable than the last that social democracy is inevitable. This is not my major concern. My apprehension stems from the fact that the leftward movement of this pendulum is beginning to expose a more authoritian government. It’s not that they passed a bill. They passed sweeping legislation that gives an overwhelming amount of control to a government. And this supposedly representative government did this over the objections of the American people; as if to say; “It matters not what you think, we know what’s best.” Despite fourteen months of “No thanks!” they sent a message to us; and that message was; “Washington to America: Drop dead!”
Hubris, much like murder becomes easier to commit each time you attempt it. If there are no consequences to this there will be no stopping any future majority from ramming any type of social change they desire upon the citizens. Fifteen years from now when the unfunded mandates for these programs come due, there is no law that says the government must continue to fund those obligations. You know this as well as I.
As we said before, no society ever achieves equilibrium because societies by definition are dynamic not static. This is the flaw in the progressive dream of the secular perfection of Man. Man does not have an inherent ‘perfect’ nature that will emerge once centralized government has guaranteed the absolutely equal distribution of all resources. As Ron White has put it before when talking about Vegans; “I didn’t climb to the top of the food chain to eat carrots!” Progressives didn’t climb to the halls of institutional power to preserve any portion of the existing America. All government is force. Force may be the gavel of a judge or the muzzle of a gun, but it is still force. It is a reasonable question to ask “What is the limit? How far is too far?” Each ‘taking’ of the rights of American citizens delivers a view of the next the next objective. We may be the first generation that bequeaths our progeny servitude.
Pat,
You begin with; “However, a sort of external force did bring about the downfall of Soviet society; the modern world, with its open communication and technical foundation, would have relegated Russia to a backwater nation, culturally isolated, technically stagnant and on a steady downward spiral.” This succinctly describes the current country of Russia. They are still isolated. They aren’t pumping enough oil to assuage their spending because of the age of the equipment and the lack of current technology in both the extraction and refinement areas.
As for your next point I’m in agreement there as well. War is a young man’s game, and although I wont’ run from a fight and I will protect my property, I’m twenty five years removed from my USMC discharge. I too hope the country lasts until I pass, and what happens afterwards well… Having said that; I’m not certain my autumn years will be all that uneventful.
If someone had told me twenty years ago that I’d be sitting on 10 acres purposefully bought twenty miles from the nearest town and thirty five miles from the nearest interstate, that I had cows, hogs, and spent last weekend tilling ground for a vegetable garden while my wife took caning lessons from a spinster up the road I’d have said they were nuts. The fact of the matter is; we’ve purposefully placed ourselves in a decidedly rural, increasingly self-sufficient position over the last five years. Why? We’re nervous. We’ve rendered over 95% of our accumulated wealth ‘invisible’ and don’t’ believe that our social security or my pension will survive intact.
“…but I agree with Phil Jackson; Americans aren’t about to ferment revolution over Health Care or Immigration Reform.” I agree here to from the standpoint that there won’t be armed revolution over this. But I believe there will be revolution.
I’m pragmatic enough to understand that as subsequent generations are birthed that are less capable than the last that social democracy is inevitable. This is not my major concern. My apprehension stems from the fact that the leftward movement of this pendulum is beginning to expose a more authoritian government. It’s not that they passed a bill. They passed sweeping legislation that gives an overwhelming amount of control to a government. And this supposedly representative government did this over the objections of the American people; as if to say; “It matters not what you think, we know what’s best.” Despite fourteen months of “No thanks!” they sent a message to us; and that message was; “Washington to America: Drop dead!”
Hubris, much like murder becomes easier to commit each time you attempt it. If there are no consequences to this there will be no stopping any future majority from ramming any type of social change they desire upon the citizens. Fifteen years from now when the unfunded mandates for these programs come due, there is no law that says the government must continue to fund those obligations. You know this as well as I.
As we said before, no society ever achieves equilibrium because societies by definition are dynamic not static. This is the flaw in the progressive dream of the secular perfection of Man. Man does not have an inherent ‘perfect’ nature that will emerge once centralized government has guaranteed the absolutely equal distribution of all resources. As Ron White has put it before when talking about Vegans; “I didn’t climb to the top of the food chain to eat carrots!” Progressives didn’t climb to the halls of institutional power to preserve any portion of the existing America. All government is force. Force may be the gavel of a judge or the muzzle of a gun, but it is still force. It is a reasonable question to ask “What is the limit? How far is too far?” Each ‘taking’ of the rights of American citizens delivers a view of the next objective. We may be the first generation that bequeaths our progeny servitude.
Bill, I was hesitant to bring up my GF in response to your story particularly because I didn’t want this to become an argument about personal issues.
The hardest thing when confronting an argument such as yours, is not appearing insensitive to you and the struggle you went through. Sometimes my style can come off as glib and insensitive (you probably know that) and so I need to be clear that my criticisms of the system, and your solutions, do not reflect on your situation, or frustration with process.
And I must say that I agree with you that bureaucracy suuuuuuuuucks. All of it sucks. But in the modern world, we cannot escape it. If it were not Medicare bureaucracy, it would be Cigna bureaucracy.
Now, I will say that in my experience government bureaucracy sucks even more than corporate bureaucracy, but only by degrees, and mostly for two very specific reasons: 1) corporate bureaucracy has an interest in keeping it’s bureaucracy simple for customers if…. 2) customers remain in the corporate bureaucracy’s good graces.
For instance, I know that I can convince the credit card girl to waive the penalty I accrued by making a payment 1 day late… because my credit score is high enough and my business important enough to her manager that she will undo the computerized bureaucracy imposed on me. This stands in contrast to the way I also know the lady at the DMV would show no such mercy.
As adults in this country, we have to subscribe to bureaucracies for everything – some public/government, some private – from the DMV for my license to drive, to AAA for my insurance required to drive, bank accounts, tax accounts, insurance…. all specific bureaucracies we are more or less required to maintain to function in modern society.
So the question becomes… whose bureaucracy do you trust more? Government or Corporate? What is your alternative? Do you think that private health care would have provided more for you parents than Medicare did?
I don’t know much about the payouts of Medicare, although most of us should probably know more, but wouldn’t fighting for a system where Medicare is stronger, and which covers more care for seniors, be more productive than fighting for less coverage? Do you really feel that a private company would have given your parents a better deal when they needed it most, or would they have searched for a way to bolster their bottom line?
And what if, after having payed into an insurance policy for 40 years, your parents’ insurance company went belly up? Those things happen. Would they just be out of all that equity?
I’m just not clear on what your alternative is. Should there be no health insurance, and the money you parents paid into the system should have been theirs all along? Would they have invested that money into health insurance that would pay for their old age problems and prayed that the company lasted their entire lives?
Eliminate Social Security, and Medicare and this new bill, and that’s where we’d be. Paying into corporate accounts and praying that the corporations outlive us. Dealing with their bureaucracy instead of the US Governments’. Who do you think will last longer, BlueCross or the US Government?
You bring up an interesting point with, “Companies don’t exist to guarantee your lifestyle. Despite your obvious belief, no one gets up one morning and says; “I want to start an entertainments company so Chasm can have a house and health care.”" Interesting in that you played right into my point.
You see, I have a pension. This, while not “guaranteeing my lifestyle,” it does help me calibrate my retirement. And while it’s not perfect – I watch my investments gain in bull markets and lose in bear markets just like everyone else – at least I know that my retirement savings won’t be wiped out by the greed of a CEO and Board of Directors. Because, unlike the unfortunate employees of Enron and the like, my pension is an independent entity which does not depend on the likes of Warner Bros and Univesral to exist. Miramax can go under, and I know that it matters to my retirement not one whit. My future, while not impervious to the market, is at least safe from pillaging – more than can be said for most retirement plans.
So, I’m not looking for entitlements – my “Cadillac” plan will most likely be taxed under this law, or diminished after strike threatening strife – I’m looking for fairness and stability.
“democrats have held the distinct majority in the House from 1956 until present, with the exception of the span between 1995 and 2005? ”
Yea, and during that span we had 2 unfunded wars (still ongoing), NCLB (also unfunded), two rounds of tax cuts for those earning un-earned income and Medicare part D. All those budget busting measures passed between 2001 and 2005.
“I’m willing to part with my earned wealth if I believe I’m buying a bargain.” Well, I have a bridge for sale…
“I told you before I should be allowed to tailor my insurance needs.” And you believe your parents would have correctly forecast their insurance needs 40 years ago? Really? Can you predict your health care needs for the next 20?
“My bank account paid for all my wife’s bills twenty years ago.” I had a feeling I was going to fall into that one. And I’m paying all my GF’s medical bills now. How does that change the point? You complained about having to pay for someone else’s treatment through insurance – but that’s the point, indeed definition of insurance. Whether the ‘specific’ example of your wife (which I cited on blind faith, so I apologize for the assumption) applies is beside the issue at hand. If you don’t believe in insurance, don’t complain that Medicare shafted your family – argue that insurance in total is an unjust system and should be abolished.
“My homeowner’s policy doesn’t include a free roof every ten years, does yours? Nor does my auto policy provide new tires every 25,000 miles, does yours? Why should all this stuff I’m never going to use be included in my health care?”
I’m not even sure what your point is here. If my homeowners policy covered roofs, and my auto policy covered tires, I’d certainly use those provisions. I would use this stuff it were included, so what point are you making?
“You expect others to pay their hard earned dollars so you may enjoy benefits that you cannot personally afford.”
No, dude, I expect that my hard earned dollars are going to go to support Arkansas a few other southern states and a couple of stupid, illegal wars. As I pointed out in my last post, if my state got to live at the means it produces, it would get a 13% budget increase – enabling it to get out of the current fiscal mess – while Arkansas would lose almost 1/3 of its’ income if forced to do the same. While we’re advocating Constitutional Amendments, why not one requiring that each state get in federal outlays what it puts in? Nooooo… that would kill states like… Arkansas.
The Republicans got their chance at nation building – they just decided to do it in the middle east. I’d much prefer my government do nation building within our own nations border, thank you. Why is it Conservatives are so eager to spend 1.2 Trillian and counting “building” states that don’t begin with “United States Of…?”
Regarding Muslims praying in school: good. They’re missing algebra and won’t be competitive with my kids. I’ll cry a river for Christians when they repeal the 2 week vacation for Christmas and the 1 week vacation for Easter. The obvious solution is to require that all Christians pray at specified times of the day… then they can join the Muslims in the prayer rooms… and spot my atheist kids even more of science and math education.
I’m sorry because I couldn’t even get beyond the first paragraph of the last article you cited, because it takes place in…. Canada. I can barely fathom why you would cite a Canadian court case in support of our argument that I don’t even know how to respond.
Chasm,
The point is here, as it has always been, that you can choose to do one of two things. Rely on yourself and your ability to make decisions, or rely on government to make all those decisions for you.
I prefer my own decisions. My money and my family’s well being is high enough on my priority list that I don’t mind doing all the due diligence required to ensure I get the most value for the dollars I decide to spend.
I’m not scared of contracting with a company for any type of product or service. I’m more leery of the government.
I personally do not believe for a minute that social security will be available for me. I’M AN Arkansas State Employee and earn a pension at work and fully expect it to be under the management of the Federal Pension Guarantee Corporation very soon after I retire. The FPGC is another federal entity. When they take over an underfunded pension they pay between 30 and 40 cents on the dollar. So we don’t have the old school “three-legged-stool” of retirement (pension, social security, and savings) we have a po-go stick (savings).
The unfunded liabilities of Medicare and social security right now is $107 trillion. That’s about $18 trillion for social security and $89 trillion for Medicare. So now we’ve passed a bill that is going to place how many more millions of people into this system? I don’t’ know your age, but how high will payroll taxes have to be for you to collect during your retirement; and do you believe for one minute that future workers are going to put up with that number?
“And what if, after having paid into an insurance policy for 40 years, your parents’ insurance company went belly up? Those things happen. Would they just be out of all that equity?” Medical insurance should be contracted like any other insurance. Annual renewal with a period that allows you to review coverage and alter it as required. If you decline to alter then it stays the same. None of this is rocket science. As your needs change year-to-year you alter coverage during the review period. Just like your car or homeowner’s. That’s how you keep any policy current. You alter coverage as your life alters.
I realize that you take a chance with private insurance, but you assume the same risk with Medicare. The short story on my Father’s illness was that every Medicare approved treatment wasn’t aggressive enough to help, and any treatment that was aggressive enough was unapproved. Under these conditions the premiums paid in by Dad served him as well as if he’d contracted with a private carrier that went broke. It still left him with the decision to either lie down and die or use his personal wealth to fight on.
That it took the social security system six months of sending $2,100 on the fourth and asking for $1,200 back on the tenth of each month for six months is inexcusable. I wonder what happens to all those widows who don’t have the luxury of having $600,000 in accumulated wealth when the bureaucracy of the most famous safety net on the planet catches a six month case of cranial rectumitis. These people aren’t eating cat food because of the republicans; they’re eating cat food because the bureaucracy screwed them over so badly that they probably never recovered from that six month roller coaster. If you’re a retiree living from check to check, you can’t go through what Mom had to go through and survive it.
If you contract with an insurance company, pay the premiums, and they hose you; you have recourse. You can sue; you can start ginning up bad press for them on TV or the newspaper. There is no recourse with the government. Once the bureaucracy decides its game over. If you don’t’ have a bank account full of cash, you go home and die. Fat lot of good that entitlement does you once the government has made its decision.
But it all boils down to the same things. I rely on myself, those that can’t’ do that well… it’s really not my problem
“Yea, and during that span we had 2 unfunded wars (still ongoing), NCLB (also unfunded), two rounds of tax cuts for those earning un-earned income and Medicare part D. All those budget busting measures passed between 2001 and 2005.” Add all that up and it doesn’t come close to $1.4 trillion, it actually adds up to Bush’s deficit of $500 billion.
My point regarding the insurance quips is this. One of the big problems we have, in my opinion, is that health insurance isn’t really insurance. Insurance is a contract between a company and an individual to cover specific loss at time of loss. I have homeowners’ insurance in case of fire or tornado, or other covered disaster. I have auto insurance for the same reason. Why should my health insurance cover co-pays, reduced prescription prices, reduced prices on medical tests, etc? If I want to go to the doctor, I should pay to see him. If I’m in a car wreck what my auto insurance doesn’t pay should be picked up by my medical. If I have a case of the sniffles, I decide if I want to pay $125 to see the doctor to have him tell me to go to Walgreen’s and get some Sudafed, or do I just go on to Walgreen’s and save the $125. Insurance is for catastrophic stuff, not every day stuff.
If you don’t like the wars, tell your boy to end them. He’s in charge. IU don’t’ know what this thing is about Arkansas, but I’m not responsible for those cats that sit on their asses down in the delta, and if you’re paying tax dollars to fund lay-abouts well life ain’t fair. So if you’ve got your knickers in a twist over your money helping out some other lout; well join the club buddy! I’ve been cutting Uncle Sugar a check every year on April 15th since 1986.
California will never climb out of its fiscal mess until your legislature pulls its head out. “There are hard choices to come as the state of California is grappling with an estimated $26 to 30 billion current budget deficit and an unfunded pension liability estimated to be in excess of $400 billion. For Marin County, with only 100,000 households, estimates are their less 5000 current and retired public employees that have an unfunded pension liability against the County in excess of $1 billion.”
http://www.examiner.com/x-9382-Marin-Republican-Examiner~y2009m7d20-California-public-employee-union-retirees–the-new-bourgeois
“I’m not scared of contracting with a company for any type of product or service. I’m more leery of the government.” Then I don’t understand your opposition to the extant bill. It does nothing if not guarantee that the corporations’ bureaucracy will be the one to sell and process your health care.
It doesn’t affect your taxes unless you make over $250k, which I certainly don’t, or unless the care provided your employer is worth more than 9% of your income – which might become a particular headache for me because my income fluctuates depending on how much I work, but my health-care costs are always the same. I don’t lose my HC when I lose my job – because in my business I’m laid off at least once a year, and so our deals are set up to cover us. Think about that hell: one year I’ll make 10x the cost of my HC, and the next year I might only make 6x and have to pay taxes on a percentage of my plan. But I’m not bitching about it. Yet.
“I’M AN Arkansas State Employee and earn a pension at work and fully expect it to be under the management of the Federal Pension Guarantee Corporation very soon after I retire.” Wait. What? If your pension goes under, I’d bet it was because Goldman Sachs or some such took all that money and bought bonds issued by a tiny bank in Iceland so the tiny bank in Iceland could buy CDO’s of oversold Las Vegas mortgages. Which tanked. And so did the tiny Icelandic bank. And yours and mine investment portfolios. But Sachs got a nice cut for the transactions, as well as a fortune by insuring those investments – even though they weren’t theirs (kinda like insuring your neighbors house) – at AIG. Which Bush bailed out, so they could pay Sachs.
But go ahead and blame it on Social Security if it makes you feel better. It is a free country.
Would you have had the wisdom to not get entangled in the Wall St scam were you controlling your investments as opposed to your State Pension? Maybe. Would every other resident of Arkansas, California and the Great 50 States? Most definitely not. And instead of this mess, we’d have an even greater one – with the old and the poor and infirm literally dying in the street.
There was a reason it was called the Great Depression. It lasted almost 20 years, and it was caused by just such an economic shock we just went through, only without the safety net you would so quickly cut.
“If you contract with an insurance company, pay the premiums, and they hose you; you have recourse. You can sue; you can start ginning up bad press for them on TV or the newspaper. There is no recourse with the government. Once the bureaucracy decides its game over.”
You can’t sue if you’re dead. And you can’t sue if you can’t pay an attorney. And an attorney isn’t going to take a case over a few thousand dollars, or the ‘injustice of it all’ unless you’re a really sympathetic client. And it’s not going to make headlines. Fox news is not going to take your call.
I agree, as I said before, about the brutality of bureaucracy. And I hate dealing with the Government just as much as you do (tho, maybe not, as you seem to draw a paycheck from them.) But the only reason the corporate bureaucracy is nice to you and me is because our credit scores are above 740, and we’re not sick at the moment. Violate either one of those rules and you will find a system as brutal and indifferent as the one you see in the Government.
“Add all that up and it doesn’t come close to $1.4 trillion,” Since the cost of the two wars alone will top 1 trillion in fiscal year 2010, I don’t see how you can make that claim, especially if you include how much money NCLB cost the states in total. That was a law that busted state budgets with an unfunded mandate. That should count too, and if it did, I’m guessing it shoots way beyond the 1.4 T.
“‘it actually adds up to Bush’s deficit of $500 billion.” Bush’s deficit wasn’t his last budget. It was how much he added to the National Debt. He was in office 8 years and as I showed you before, increased the Debt from 5.6T to over 10T. That’s well over 4 Trillion dollars. In a supposedly ‘prosperous’ economy, which in reality was the greatest transfer of wealth upwards since the Gilded Age! If the Republicans can’t even come close to balancing the budget – and almost double the Debt – in ‘good’ times, what exactly are you expecting of Democrats in a year? Talk to me in 7 years, and describe the exact nature of Obamas’ bombshell deficits then. We’re still digging out from the one Bush blew off.
“Why should my health insurance cover co-pays, reduced prescription prices, reduced prices on medical tests, etc? If I want to go to the doctor, I should pay to see him. If I’m in a car wreck what my auto insurance doesn’t pay should be picked up by my medical. If I have a case of the sniffles, I decide if I want to pay $125 to see the doctor to have him tell me to go to Walgreen’s and get some Sudafed, or do I just go on to Walgreen’s and save the $125. Insurance is for catastrophic stuff, not every day stuff.” How very self-sufficient you are. And if someone is not as lucky as you, say their kid is born with a cleft palate. That’s a ‘pre-existing condition’ that some insurance companies are balking at paying. Do we have to start calling Doctors Without Borders to do Pro Bono work in our own country?
But isn’t that what this new law is proposing anyway? That if you like your employer’s insurance you can keep it, but if you want to go to an exchange and go a la carte, you can do that too? That idea was originally proposed by Republicans, back as an alternative to Hillarycare, I believe. You should be happy. I haven’t checked lately, but isn’t catastrophic coverage still part of the bill?
“IU don’t’ know what this thing is about Arkansas, but I’m not responsible for those cats that sit on their asses down in the delta, and if you’re paying tax dollars to fund lay-abouts well life ain’t fair.” First of all, I didn’t complain. I specifically defended the system that sees my tax dollars go towards your paycheck. You did say you were a state employee, didn’t you? Almost a third of the money Arkansas gets from the Fed Gov comes from other states, and I’m assuming some of that gets into the fund that pays your salary. It may not, but whatever – if your state lost 1/3 of it’s budget, allot of people would lose jobs. And didn’t you say you oversee contracts with military clients? Would any of that money be my tax money too? So you’re a State employee dealing with federal money, so I suppose you have an inside view of the system and waste. I’ve been to the Soviet Union (yes, the USSR). I’ve seen what crappy results socialist bureaucracies can achieve too. So you have my sympathies. I’m glad someone as honorable as you is on the job, keeping my money well spent!
“So if you’ve got your knickers in a twist over your money helping out some other lout; well join the club buddy!” My knickers don’t get twisted over helping someone out. I’m a liberal. My knickers get twisted bombing and torturing people. Bush wasted a trillion dollars destroying other countries, I’d like to see at least that much spent re-building ours.
Chasm,
First, the major problem I have with this health care bill is the cost to the nation. I wasn’t a fan of George Bush’s spending (compassionate conservatism puleeze!) and I’m not a fan of our deficit now. I posted two articles in February on IC. The first “Obama’s Financial Transformation”. I’ll not copy extensive paragraphs from this one as you can check it out if you want; but the punch line is; “Dividing debt by assets in this case yields an answer of 5:1. That’s right; we as a nation owe $5 in debt for each dollar we have in assets; and that’s short term.
You never want to be in a position where your short term liabilities exceed on hand assets. The reason you don’t want this number so out of balance is simple. If all the banks, credit card companies, and other companies you personally owed money to suddenly called their notes, what would happen to you financially? You guessed it; debtor’s prison.”
And that’s what‘s in store for the nation if we keep piling on unsustainable debt. All this debt makes the money I earn and the money I’ve saved worth less. If you want to see the results of such things look at what happened to Germany after they got socked with the reparations from WW I; or maybe take a look at Zimbabwe’s financial health.
The second article entitled “The Obama Health Care Summit is a Show” where I pointed out that just the expanded Medicaid portion of the President’s new health care package will cost over $959 billion during a ten year period. If Medicaid alone actually calculates to that number; what is the real cost of this program after adding in all the other stuff? More than the quoted $1 trillion I’ll bet! No federal program, ever, has run within budget.
“What? If your pension goes under, I’d bet it was because Goldman Sachs or some such took all that money and bought bonds issued by a tiny bank in Iceland so the tiny bank in Iceland could buy CDO’s of oversold Las Vegas mortgages…” I’ll skip the rest of the ‘I hate all business’ screed. The reason the APERS (Arkansas State Employees Retirement System) is going broke has nothing to do with Goldman Sachs. It has everything to do with the incompetent state legislature and the state employees hired to oversee the system.
First, The Arkansas pension system, until about 1990 was a separate line item in the Arkansas State Budget. In 1990 its status was moved from a separate ‘must fund’ line item into the general fund category. Ever since then the legislature puts money into the fund if it can; if it can’t well that’s just too bad.
The effect of all this is that the pension fund for state retirees has been under funded by the legislature for almost the last 20 years. While its unfunded liability doesn’t even come close to California’s it is close to $11 million as of now. It’s not going to get better any time soon. Let’s see; what WAS the name of that governor that pushed this idea in the 90’s. I think his name was Bill something, went on to become president of the United States. You remember the guy don’t you; America’s first black president?
As for your ‘Bush is responsible for all our budget woes’ you’re full of it. The first thing you need to learn is the difference between deficits and debt. The second thing you need to learn to do is add properly. Suffice it to say, that under ANY measure, Obama has racked up more of both in the last year than Bush did during his entire eight. I didn’t like Bush’s big spending ways at all, but he was an amateur at spending cash when compared to Obama.
“How very self-sufficient you are. And if someone is not as lucky as you…” There’s obviously something seriously lacking in your life experience. “Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce.” Ring a bell? I earn my money. I give extensively to favored charities; as do many others in this great nation. No one may lay claim to any portion of what I legally earn because of a ‘sob story’. Last year I earned $35k, my charitable donations, not counting that forced donation I gave on April 15th amounted to a little north of $7,500. While I am free to give as I see fit, no one has the ability to make any claim against my earnings because of their ‘supposed’ need. You want to see an unfortunate child’s cleft palate repaired, write a check. But don’t say; “That child has a cleft palate, someone should make Bill write a check, after all he has a savings account.”
My paychecks come from the DoD budget. The government funds the Army with the Defense Appropriation Bill. A portion of that goes to the active duty Army. A portion of that goes to National Guard Bureau. In turn, NGB funds the fifty states and four territories. All government funding is taxpayer money. I appreciate your confidence in the job we do. In the ten years I’ve been the Master Planner for the AR ARNG we’ve never failed to complete a project on time, we’ve never gone over budget, and we’ve never failed to deliver 100% of the requirements of the project. We do spend 100% of our allotment, but we don’t buy tee shirts, or coffee mugs, or other stuff just to waste the last 10 grand or so. We’re always putting any dollars we squeeze out of one project into another. I can’t speak for other states, but here we are in the business of providing world class training facilities for citizen soldiers, and that’s what we do.
I’ll close with this; “Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion–when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing–when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors–when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you–when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice–you may know that your society is doomed.”
- Francisco d’Anconia; from ‘Atlas Shrugged’ by Ayn Rand 1957
Read the book, you may learn something.