Conservative bitch-slaps conservatives
No gloating in this. Just the delight of seeing the whiners, distorters and liars on the right taken down by one of their own (in The Daily Beast, h/t to the Huff Post). Of course, a Reagan-era conservative would have little love for any of the Bushies, and even less the more they tried to claim Reagan's "true" conservative mantle. But Bruce Bartlett, one of the inventors of supply-side economics, does more than tear the current crop of right-wing a new one:
In my opinion, conservative activists, who seem to believe that the louder they shout the more correct their beliefs must be, are less angry about Obama’s policies than they are about having lost the White House in 2008. They are primarily Republican Party hacks trying to overturn the election results, not representatives of a true grassroots revolt against liberal policies.
He demonstrates, with actuals facts and figures (resources steadfastly avoided by both Bush-era and current conservatives), that Bill Clinton's presidency was far more successful than Bush's, including on bases valued — allegedly — by conservatives:
It is well-known that Clinton left office with a budget surplus and Bush left with the largest deficit in history. Less well-known is Clinton's cutting of spending on his watch, reducing federal outlays from 22.1 percent of GDP to 18.4 percent of GDP. Bush, by contrast, increased spending to 20.9 percent of GDP. Clinton abolished a federal entitlement program, Welfare, for the first time in American history, while Bush established a new one for prescription drugs.
The items for which, as a conservative, Bartlett praises Clinton are among those which liberals and conservatives have problems with, especially his welfare-related actions, much of which was regressive and hurtful to the poor and disadvantaged. The point here, however, is not the nature of the policy but that Clinton performed better as a president than Bush — on grounds that conservatives themselves say matter.
Bartlett even exonerates Obama's performance to date, laying the blame for his "mistakes" at Bush's feet (something too few on the left are willing to do):
I think conservative anger is misplaced. To a large extent, Obama is only cleaning up messes created by Bush. This is not to say Obama hasn't made mistakes himself, but even they can be blamed on Bush insofar as Bush's incompetence led to the election of a Democrat.
A terrific article, not because a conservative makes a case for conservative policies (Bartlett's work under Reagan was heinous in its own right) but for an honest appraisal of what's wrong with the angry attacks on the President and the promulgation of the idea that Bush was a great, effective president or that the right has anything of value to offer today. Because the one thing lacking from this article is exactly that: What can the conservatives offer that is better than what Obama and the Dems in Congress are doing?
We know that answer and don't require Bartlett to provide it: Nothing.
|
August 13, 2009 |
T.A. Barnhart | Comments (76 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: alcatross | Aug 14, 2009 4:59:56 AM
Gee whiz, TA... what planet have you been on?
Bartlett's (and a good number of other Conservatives' with a capital 'C') criticism of GW Bush's economic policies isn't news. Even such an authoritative and deeply-rooted 'inside' source as Wikipedia notes that Bartlett was fired in 2005 from his job at a free-market think tank for his criticism of Bush's economic policies. I've personally seen his similarly-themed syndicated columns here and there the past few years - he even wrote a book called How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy in which he compares GW Bush to Richard M. Nixon as "two superficially conservative presidents who enacted liberal programs to buy votes for reelection."
BTW, just because federal spending as a % of GDP fell during the Clinton administration doesn't mean federal spending went down... it just means the GDP managed to grow faster than federal government spending. Without arguing over who earned or should take credit, it's a fact Clinton benefited from the fortuitous combination of the continuing post-Cold War military draw-down (especially during his first term) that started during Bush 41s term and an extraordinary period of economic growth. Non-discretionary spending during Clinton's 2nd term still grew near 15% - despite the 'abolishment' of welfare (which it's also well-known Clinton would have tried to reverse if he hadn't shot a lot of his own political wad (so to speak...) on Monica Lewinsky's blue dress...) And Bush established the massive new Medicare entitlement program for prescription drugs (which WAS loudly protested by Conservatives with a capital 'C') with the overwhelming encouragement and support of Democrats in Congress led by the 'lion of the Senate' himself, Ted Kennedy.
It's a bit of a stretch to claim Bartlett is a 'leading conservative economist' - at best he was a 'policy analyst' (over 20 years ago)... over the last 15 years he's just a former Washington fringe-player making a living as yet another caterwauling Beltway pundit. Regardless, so what? You think all 'conservatives' think exactly alike?
I don't disagree with some of the things he says - but criticism of the presidential administration policies by the opposition party is how the game is played. Bartlett is just repackaging stuff he's been saying for awhile here to hump the new book he's got coming out.
Posted by: alcatross | Aug 14, 2009 5:07:47 AM
BTW, interesting to see the ads promoting Ann Coulter's weekly column here in the middle of Blue Oregon... lol!
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 14, 2009 6:12:39 AM
Don't go crazy, but I hope you click on some of those Newt and Coulter ads. Every time you do, a couple nickels goes from them to us! And no, I haven't got the foggiest idea why they're advertising here.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Aug 14, 2009 6:38:13 AM
alc, it wasn't that this article was new or innovative; i just dug the way he ripped into the wrong-headedness of conservatives. and that he did so by praising (as he would see) Bill Clinton, the conservative's anti-christ, was just too rich.
and wherever he stands in the pantheon of conservative columnists (this was written for The Daily Beast & not WSJ), his creds as a conservative are solid. the subtext of this piece seems to be: we (under Reagan) were the real conservatives; you Bushies were worse than the Dems — to whom your incompetence & unconservativeness gave power.
Posted by: JJ | Aug 14, 2009 6:40:37 AM
Bartlett clearly has a point. A large part of what aided the Clinton economy was his approach as a "New Democrat", which led him to slash capital gains taxes and reign in some spending. Some of his spending cuts were horrendous (slashing the defense budget for instance was beyond disgraceful), but his welfare reform clearly deserves praise. What Bush (and congressional Republicans) seemed to miss during the Bush presidency was that you can't just get half of the equation right and expect the results you are looking for. Bush's tax cuts on both capital gains and regular income clearly increased the tax revenue by growing the economy (as tax cuts always do), but it doesn't matter how much you increase revenue if you always increase spending by even more...you will then always run a deficit. If Bush had combined his tax cuts with targeted spending cuts, America would have seen much greater economic success. No one should overlook the fact that Bush did inherit a recession, coupled with a potentially crippling terrorist attack which even further threatened our economy..and through accelerating the tax cuts he pulled the US economy out of very difficult economic times...but had he incorporated spending cuts as well, we all would have been much better off.
So while Obama's presidency is clearly off to a bad start (as most Americans now disapprove of his presidency), perhaps he can turn things around by looking back at Bush and Clinton and understanding just how much those two did to save our economy....wishful thinking I'm sure, Obama doesn't seem to have that kind of wisdom or critical thinking ability in him..which is too bad for all of us...
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Aug 14, 2009 6:40:45 AM
ok Kari, i made a nickel for BO. it was worth it to see the cast of characters the right is listening to. dear god.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Aug 14, 2009 7:23:03 AM
Some of his spending cuts were horrendous (slashing the defense budget for instance was beyond disgraceful)
Reagan promised the nation a cold war dividend -- cutting military spending and reinvesting in infrastructure. Clinton delivered on that promise.
The United States currently accounts for half of all global military spending. With the Cold War over, there is no credible rationale for maintaining the current spending levels. None of our "enemies", not North Korea, nor Al Qaeda, the Taliban, nor any other threat -- real or imagined -- justifies the current level of military spending.
Posted by: JJ | Aug 14, 2009 7:40:49 AM
Sal: "None of our "enemies", not North Korea, nor Al Qaeda, the Taliban, nor any other threat -- real or imagined -- justifies the current level of military spending."
Wow Sal, strong words there..perhaps you should tell that to the men and women in our military who are currently fighting like hell in Afghanistan and Iraq against our terrorist enemies, or tell that the the families of the 3,000 people we lost on 9/11...go and tell them that we are not up against a real enemy..tell them that this threat is just a some conjured up fairy tale of the right...and tell them that you think we spend too much on our efforts to defeat this enemy, too much on body armor, on secured humvees, on weapons systems......i don't doubt that al quada, the taliban, hamas and hezbollah would all fully support your plan to gut the US military...but to people who actually support America, who protect America and who want to keep it safe, your words are beyond deplorable. Do yourself a favor and retract your comment..clearly you didn't actually mean that...
Posted by: dartagnan | Aug 14, 2009 8:03:33 AM
"So while Obama's presidency is clearly off to a bad start (as most Americans now disapprove of his presidency)"
Where the hell are you getting that information?
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. July 31-Aug. 3, 2009
"Do you consider the first six months of the Obama administration to be a success or a failure?"
Success: 51% Failure: 37%
I think what we have here is another example of a right-winger employing the rhetorical device of "proof by assertion."
Posted by: Blue collar Libertarian | Aug 14, 2009 8:04:03 AM
Hey JJ we have about 30,000 troops in Japan and the same number in Korea,50,000 to 70,000 in Germany, 11,000 each in England and Italy. Note that Japan, Korea and Germany all manufacture cars and in the U.S. auto manufactures have been having a difficult time, not that they have made their own mistakes, but here we are subsidizing those U.S. auto makers have to compete against in a global market by helping to defend them.
Then we might ask. Why we have troops in England? The Normans going to invade them? Or Italy for that. Hannibal going to cross the Alps.
Bring the troops home! Maybe someday one of those Democrats will get rid of this welfare program. But I won't hold my breath.
Posted by: dartagnan | Aug 14, 2009 8:08:58 AM
"tell them that you think we spend too much on our efforts to defeat this enemy"
The enemy today is terrorist groups, and we will not defeat them by spending billions on high-tech hardware because this is a different type of war and calls for different weapons and tactics. Trying to defeat terrorists with conventional weapons and tactics is like trying to kill mosquitoes with a shotgun.
Nor do I understand how any amount of military spending would have prevented 19 Islamist wackos armed with box cutters from taking over two airliners and flying them into the World Trade Center.
Posted by: JJ | Aug 14, 2009 8:33:24 AM
dartagan: you need to step it up a bit on your research..when i said obama's presidency is failing, it was based on the most recent poll numbers which show that 47% of Americans approve of the job he's doing, while 52% now oppose. Here's the link...happy reading.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Posted by: Murphy | Aug 14, 2009 9:25:14 AM
JJ --
This country was born of a revolution, survived an invasion, nearly committed national suicide in a civil war, fought two world wars, overcame numerous economic recessions and several depressions, not to mention also lived through the various social and cultural upheavals that any progressive nation will undergo, and it will overcome a cadre of fundamentalist religious nutcases.
But since you and your fellow travelers seem to think that America now face an existential threat greater than any before, I expect to see you down at the recruiting depot today ready to sign up.
At the very least, you ought to support a draft, right? I mean, this country is in serious danger of immediate destruction, and so it’s all hands on deck. I also assume you’d support an immediate tax increase to pay for this military spending. After all, it’s a small price to pay for survival, isn't it?
And by the way: Research 2000 poll from 8/13.
PRESIDENT OBAMA Favorable -- 60 Unfavorable -- 36
Enjoy YOUR reading.
Posted by: Mike M | Aug 14, 2009 9:48:04 AM
Here are the results for the above mentioned Research 2000 poll:
http://www.dailykos.com/weeklypoll/2009/8/13
Posted by: Richard | Aug 14, 2009 10:15:14 AM
For real explanations of all things Republican and conservative go to DailyKos, BlueOregon, MediaMatters, HuffingtonPost Keith Olbermand and Ed Schultz?
Posted by: Mike M | Aug 14, 2009 10:22:00 AM
This is actually more telling:
pollster summary of many polls
Of course the websites you mention are the pillar of objectivity (sarcasm off)
Posted by: Bill Holmer | Aug 14, 2009 10:42:07 AM
Bill Clinton listened to the electorate and adapted his policies accordingly. GWB thought he was elected to do what he thought was right, so he ignored what the electorate thought. Obama doesn't listen to what the electorate is saying and believes his role is to convince the public to adapt to what he believes is right.
When Obama talks about "teachable moments" he's thinking about what he can teach others, rather than what he can learn from others. Obama should talk less and listen more.
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 14, 2009 10:47:25 AM
Sal Peralta wrote:
"The United States currently accounts for half of all global military spending"
So what?
The dollar cost of equipping 100 American troops compared to 100 Chinese is not the same.
The US does not field half of the world's military manpower.
Why don't you compare the size of our military in real terms, not in dollars?
Then you will probably see that our military is more or less proportional to our share of world population.
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 14, 2009 10:50:39 AM
Murphy wrote:
"you ought to support a draft, right?"
In the event of a draft, both Obama and Clinton are on record in support of forcing women into the draft.
The American public, I think, will not go along with forcing their daughters into the military.
Do you?
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 14, 2009 10:54:02 AM
alcatross wrote:
"Gee whiz, TA... what planet have you been on?
Bartlett's (and a good number of other Conservatives' with a capital 'C') criticism of GW Bush's economic policies isn't news........"
Great post, point by point, alcatross.
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 14, 2009 11:10:51 AM
T.A. wrote:
"What can the conservatives offer that is better than what Obama and the Dems in Congress are doing?
We know that answer and don't require Bartlett to provide it: Nothing."
How 'bout instead of creating a government monopoly on health care, we instead allow more freedom for individuals and small businesses (and their employees) to pool together to purchase health insurance as a group ---- voluntarily. They could benefit from favorable group rates just as large corporations do.(they currently are not allowed to due to government overregulation. Obama and the Ds are simply proposing more of the same)
What would be wrong with more freedom in your view, T.A.?
How is government coercion superior to voluntary choice, I'd really like an honest answer from you.
Posted by: Dan | Aug 14, 2009 11:21:05 AM
TA BoneHead,
It's good to see you ramp up the Hate!
Have you taken the training wheels off your bike yet?
Posted by: paul g. | Aug 14, 2009 11:27:15 AM
Sigh.
I hate to seem like a prude here for the Nth time, but during a period when we are criticizing conservatives for overheated rhetoric at town halls, do we really have to use the term "bitch slap"?
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Aug 14, 2009 11:29:33 AM
Why don't you compare the size of our military in real terms, not in dollars?
Howsabout you guys quit conflating "The Troops" with the overall military budget.
There is lot's good evidence that a huge percentage of the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in the defense budget is going to stupid crap like the F-22, the B-2, and a bunch of other James Bond category toys that don't (and will never) work.
Don't even try to make support for the defense budget about support for The Troops.
Posted by: RyanLeo | Aug 14, 2009 11:49:25 AM
I see that Ted Piccolo's AKA I Am Coyote army of wingnut drones is coming over here citing the same Rasmussen Reports crap that is cited on NW Republican.
It is one thing to cite Rasmussen Reports, but to argue that in face of other polling (http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm) that COLLECTIVELY tells a different story is 3rd rate political hackery at best.
You may get away with referring to President Obama as BhObama, the One, Barack Hussein or other racist nonsense on wingnut blogs, but I and many other commentators will call you out and turn you out every time you try that nonsense over here.
The reaction goes to show you how insane wingnuts become once a founder of Reaganomics AKA supply side economics theory starts calling their faux outrage for what it really is:
Trying to shut down a civil debate via mob rule because they believe that elections do not have consequences for themselves and their families.
Posted by: Murphy | Aug 14, 2009 11:52:37 AM
“The American public, I think, will not go along with forcing their daughters into the military.”
If, as the neocon militarists are forever telling us, the very existence of our country is in grave, immediate danger, can we afford not to have the daughters of the American public serving in the military? So you’re willing to let the fair maidens of the land sit it out while their country is overrun by screaming, evil Arabs. Dude -- Cheney’s going to take away your secret decoder ring.
So which is it? Is America in serious, imminent danger -- or just “sort of” in danger? I mean, you know, not enough to support the kind of mobilization we saw in WW II, but, well, in enough danger to scare citizens come election time.
You see, cons have bought wholly into a fear-based ideology in order to scare the population into supporting their policies, and as with all authoritarian systems, it will not be able to maintain power, and will eventually die by its own paranoia and suspicion. We’ve witnessed the beginning of that very process over the last four years. The right’s ongoing hysteria -- it just can’t quite come to terms with Obama -- is simply a manifestation of that paranoia.
It’s going to be a long, slow, slide.
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 14, 2009 11:54:44 AM
Pat Ryan wrote:
"stupid crap like the F-22, the B-2, and a bunch of other James Bond category toys that don't (and will never) work"
wow I didn't know you could read the future, Pat. You must be amazing.
The left derided Reagan's missile defense as 'Star wars' , saying 'it will never work'.
But missile defense does work, and continues to improve.
Why do those on the left oppose advancing the technology available to Americans in order to save lives?
Why is Obama in the process of gutting missile defense and other advances?
Should we just issue rocks and sticks to our guys?
Amazing. *shakes head*
Posted by: Jake Leander | Aug 14, 2009 12:02:14 PM
T.A.,
I see little difference between the Reagan and Shrub administrations. Both were kleptocratic [More than 30 Reagan appointees were convicted of crimes committed on the job and more than 30 more quit or were fired over unethical behavior]. Both had disastrous economic policies [what Papa Bush called voodoo economics were later exposed by Reagan's own budget director, John Stockman]. Reagan was an outlaw imperialist [Central America, Grenada]. The Reagan administration ignored science to promote environmental rape.
The big difference: Reagan was perceived as a kindly grandfather, while Shrub came off as an inarticulate fool. Both were intellectually challenged shills for capitalist exploitation and imperial foreign policy.
Posted by: Scott Jorgensen | Aug 14, 2009 12:05:45 PM
Back when I was a GOP operative in 2004-05, I caught a lot of hell from Republicans for expressing that Clinton governed much more conservatively than Bush on many issues. I specifically recall warning these folks that, "You will rue the day that you began supporting and defending Bush." Sometimes you don't want to be right...
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 14, 2009 12:14:47 PM
Jake Leander wrote:
"Both had disastrous economic policies "
Yeah Reagan what a disaster.
He took the interest rates of 20% inherited from Jimmy Carter and cut them nearly in half.
And all those new jobs! Who has time to work that much? C'mon.
GDP soared as did revenue to the US treasury when he cut taxes and let people keep more of what they earned.
What a bonehead.
Thank goodness we finally have a President who will reverse the madness and put that money back in government hands where it belongs.
It's simply too dangerous to allow individuals to keep that much cash. Who knows what they might do with it?
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Aug 14, 2009 12:19:00 PM
Of course I support a robust R&D arm to our defense policy. Anything else would be suicidal. The problem comes when the development budget decisions are based on pork for the perpetuation and expansion of internal DOD departments and control of congressional districts rather than the actual efficacy of a given program based on the science.
Since you guys are all about the WastFraudAndAbuse angle of gummint bureaucracies, point some of that vigilance at the biggest Black Hole in the budget.
The same is true with the health care reform issue. Believe it or not, the president's crew is fanned out through the whole mess looking for efficiencies in medicare, VA, medicaid, and education. They have already identified hundreds of opportunities which are on the public record, but they can't be heard over the incoherent screaming of their one-note opponents.
Remember that these guys are libertarian paternalists and as such are less interested in dogma than they are in results.
It can't realistically be summarized in a one sentence soundbite, and I suspect that a lot of you are disinterested in such incrementalism, but to my mind it's the only sane way to approach a systemic overhaul.
*********
Bottom line? If gummint is inherently evil, no efficiency in the spending of my tax dollars is likely to impress you anyway.
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Aug 14, 2009 12:25:07 PM
Righton, Scott! Bush was a horrible candidate and a worse president. McCain in 2000 was my candidate. Too bad the dems ran such poor candidates against him. It really was a choice of tweedle dum and tweedle dummer.
Today now there is no conservative movement ala Reagan and Goldwater. The republican party is taken over by idealogues that actually listen to the likes of Sarah Palin and think they make sense. The national republican party is in worse shape than the Oregon republican party and that is very sad.
Clinton had somevery good results. Some were his and some were forced upon him by a republican congress. Today, unfortunately we have the same thing that we had for the last 8 years. Federal government controlled by a single party and a strident outer wing pulling the mainstream outward.
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 14, 2009 12:36:36 PM
Pat,
So, 'bureaucratic control of defense budget -- bad' and 'bureaucratic control of health care -- good' ?
What makes you think that a government monopoly on health care would be efficient when our experience with other government bureaucracies suggest otherwise?
I don't want Obama 'looking for efficiencies' in health care.
I want government out of the health care market.
The government has a constitutional mandate for defense. That's not gonna change because you can't privatize it.
No such mandate exists for health care. The 10th Amendment shows the wisdom of our founders in allowing the federal tribe only as much authority as was absolutely essential.
Trim the government to it's proper size and task and it will be a whole lot easier to focus on making it efficient and accountable because it's functions will be few and far between.
Put it in charge of everything and no one will be able to keep up with what is being spent where.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Aug 14, 2009 1:05:07 PM
I don't want Obama 'looking for efficiencies' in health care. I want government out of the health care market.
And that collision between your religious beliefs and my understanding as a small business owner and as a citizen that the current US healthcare system, employer based, and coming in a 400% cost compared to the average of our global industrial competitors, is killing our competitiveness.
As a 59 year old business owner, I'm no longer willing to carry every doctrinaire libertarian with insufficient healthcare insurance on my back when it comes time to pay the piper. I'm clear that you think that the current system of small business providing welfare to the rest of you guys is just fine, but I guess I'm just not that much of a socialist.
Posted by: Fireslayer | Aug 14, 2009 1:20:27 PM
I wish you illiberals would consider Big Insurance with the same skepticism you regard Big Government.
The Insurance Industry invented limiting doctor choice.
The Insurance Industry invented rationing health care.
The Insurance Industry sucks 30 cents out of every health care dollar and cost 10 times as much to administer as Medicare. And Medicare for All would be even more efficient.
And the Insurance Industry is one big lying sack of poo poo. They started the lie about Death Panels. They have ponied up millions to create a false impression of a grass roots movement against Obama's half steps towards reform.
They rap themselves in proclamations touting their free enterprise entitlement. And yet they are buns up at the trough for subsidized premiums.
Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party in Great Britan, just released a rejoinder against Tea Blogger attacks on the British National Health Service. Real conservatives see no place for the greed players in health care. Yes, John Crypto-Right-winger Mackey, it is a right. Just ask our British cousins who invented Conservatism.
So you illiberals want Insurance Companies for your end of life planning and discussions?
Try this for dialog:
"Sorry, we don't cover that. Drop Dead."
Posted by: Elaine | Aug 14, 2009 1:22:45 PM
T.A., Thanks for pointing out that article -- I read it yesterday and thought it pretty good.
I have to laugh when the so-called fiscally conservative scream about the cost of single-payer health insurance. Oh, man, I guess facts don't matter to them. Yes, all insurance is a form of socialism, even if you buy it privately. So now why would anyone want to pay retail if you can get a wholesale deal?
You have to wonder how many realize that supply-side economics really doesn't work well for a consumer-driven (demand based) economy. You really can't have it both ways at the same time, policywise. Ahem, it seems right now the U.S. has plenty of what we ordinary folks can't afford nor want, regardless of the advertising campaign. So, how is that working for us?
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 14, 2009 1:31:51 PM
Pat,
How is 'I want government out of the health care market' considered a 'religious belief' by you?
How is 'I want government out of the health care market' considered 'socialist' by you?
I favor:
a) ending exemptions for 'self insurance' plans by employers. If businesses want to 'play insurance company' for their employees, then they should be subject to the same rules as a real insurance company.
b) allowing individuals and small businesses to pool together to get group coverage at favorable rates like large corporations with many employees do
c) ending cost shifting. Health providers shouldn't be able to charge me or my insurance company more simply because a government program such as medicare didn't pay market rate or because an uninsured person skipped out on their bill.
d) enacting tort reform to limit lawyers fees in medical malpractice suits.
e) ending federal medicare and medicaid programs. If the states want to run similar programs, fine. But it is not within the constitutional mandate for the feds to do so.
f) ending illegal immigration. Remove the job magnet and illegals will go home and stop draining the health care system of time and resources.
g) allowing everyone to utilize MSAs
h) expanding convertibility. When an individual leaves a group plan he should be able to take coverage with him as an individual if he chooses to do so. Naturally he won't get the same favorable rate as a group. But he shouldn't lose coverage. If he wants to transfer from one group to another, he should be able to do so.
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 14, 2009 1:36:47 PM
Elaine wrote:
"Yes, all insurance is a form of socialism, even if you buy it privately."
Do you really not understand the distinction between doing something voluntarily and being forced by law to participate against your will?
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 14, 2009 1:41:17 PM
Fireslayer wrote:
"I wish you illiberals would consider Big Insurance with the same skepticism you regard Big Government."
I do.
That's why I would prefer choice as opposed to no choice.
If government establishes the health care monopoly that Obama desires, you are out of options.
In a monopoly, there is NO incentive for efficiency, NO incentive for good service.
Do you really want a health care system with all the efficiency of the DMV and all the compassion of the IRS?
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 14, 2009 2:12:59 PM
If opposing "government-run" health care truly is a matter of conservative ideological principle then why aren't British and Canadian conservatives trying to overturn their respective health care systems?
Both systems bear far more resemblence to the "Socialism" boogyman that the GOP is using in public than what is actually on the table in Congress.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Aug 14, 2009 2:15:19 PM
JJ - The military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were not part of the congressionally authorized military budget and are not usually included in estimates about U.S. military expenditures.
Here's the list of the top countries by military expenditures. You will note that 21 of the top 23 countries on the list are staunch American allies. The only two that aren't are China, our largest trading partner, and Russia both of whom combined spend less than a fifth of what we spend on military expenditures.
Iran and North Korea, the two biggest nationalist threats to the United States, are #24 and #25 on the list, and spend less money combined on their military than Australia.
In the absence of an arms race with another superpower, there is no justification for maintaining our current level of military spending.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Aug 14, 2009 2:27:13 PM
If we define religion as believing things to be true for which there is no compelling evidence, your itemized response is the demonstration. So by the letter:
a) No comment. Unclear on what your point is here.
b) I'm with you on this one.....
c) Several implied assumptions-- 1. that most deadbeats are medicare recipients or uninsured. That medicare always (or mostly) underpays and the poor defenseless insurance companies have to make up the difference.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/does_medicare_pay_below_cost_w.html
d) Actual peer reviewed studies show that the vast majority of malpractice lawsuits involve actual patient harm i.e. they are not frivolous, and; the lawsuits that are frivolous are largely thrown out by judges. Here's a link, since the hyperlink feature seems spotty today.
http://www.slate.com/id/2145400/
The other fact here, is that there is zero correlation between the rise in malpractice premiums and claims paid.
http://www.insurance-reform.org/issues/StableLosses-MA04.pdf
e) I'm opposed to anybody coming into this country illegally and I also oppose employers hiring said illegal immigrants, but to then ignore the effects of the past twenty years of screwed up anti-American trade policy while focusing on health care is to pretty much miss the point entirely. (BTW: Once an ill human being from wherever, presents to a physician, it would be both immoral and illegal to deny them treatment. Neither they nor we are animals here.....)
g) MSAs, HSAs, are another good theoretical idea, until the thousands of dollars taht you've saved over the years disappears and you are selling the house. Then you're back in my pocket again with the privatized socialism.
"Harvard researchers say 62% of all personal bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2007 were caused by health problems—and 78% of those filers had insurance..."
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009064_666715.htm
h) I think that everyone's for this one.
If you are willing to internalize factsw taht disagree with your current position, or provide coutervailing facts, you are reason based. If not.....my point about religion is pretty much proven.
Posted by: paul g. | Aug 14, 2009 2:31:22 PM
I don't know why my submissions keep failing to appear but ...
at the risk of being a constant nag, can we please try to avoid using terms like "bitch slap."
Not only is it sexist, it's needlessly provocative and undercuts our message about calming the rhetoric.
Posted by: Elaine | Aug 14, 2009 2:34:11 PM
LOL!
So, it's fine to be paying 30% more for what is already an oligopoly with no efficiency, no incentive for good service and no compassion? In addition, just to make sure there is no competition, let's also pay for lobbyists. As a large insurance corporation, we can up our salaries if we duplicate all administrative services and require insureds to fill out as many forms as possible with slight variations so that they can pay for even further processing fees. Oh, and to make sure we have the best CEO's in the business, let's make sure they remain on board for an additional $8M a year in bonuses, so that we can brag amongst ourselves on our Caribean vacations, er, conferences about the newest method of scamming insured of valid claims.
Just so that you know, those of us who are insured, still don't have a choice to pay for those who aren't. We also pay a premium for those who end up getting treated at an ER. The pool of insureds, btw, is growing smaller which means even greater costs to consumers, be they individuals or businesses.
I want the portability of universal health insurance -- the choice to live and work wherever I want in the U.S., and the ability to keep the same insurance. I don't want to be dependent on my employer for that "perk", thanks.
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 14, 2009 2:34:23 PM
Sal Peralta wrote:
"Iran and North Korea, the two biggest nationalist threats to the United States, are #24 and #25 on the list, and spend less money combined on their military than Australia."
Again, so what?
"This means that the average North Korean makes the equivalent of about a dollar a day, which puts the North among the world's 25 poorest countries in terms of per capita income."
Let's compare apples with apples. North Korea spends far more in real terms on their military than the US.
"Military expenditures account for 31.3 percent of GDP expenditures, making North Korea --- dollar for dollar --- the world's most militaristic state."
Percent of GDP Spent on Military
North Korea 31%
South Korea 3%
U.S. 3%
Britain 2%
France 3%
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 14, 2009 2:48:27 PM
Elaine wrote:
"I want the portability of universal health insurance -- the choice to live and work wherever I want in the U.S., and the ability to keep the same insurance. I don't want to be dependent on my employer for that "perk", thanks"
No one is making you dependent.
If you want insurance on your own , buy it.
No one said you could only buy it thru your employer.
But why should everyone else forfeit the right to have employer-based coverage if THEY want it?
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 14, 2009 3:01:38 PM
Pat Ryan wrote:
"a) Unclear on what your point is here."
The point is simple.
If your employer wants to 'play insurance company' by collecting premiums and paying claims (that what happens in a 'self insured' plan. The administration of the plan is provided by Blue Cross or Aetna or some supposed insurance company, but the real risk is carried by the employer. It is the employer that is 'insuring' you), then the employer should have to follow the laws that govern insurance firms. But they don't. They are often exempt.
So when people claim 'the insurance company disallowed my coverage', it likely was their employer which did so, using Blue Cross or Aetna as cover.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Aug 13, 2009 11:31:05 PM
I have long believed that most of my fellow Republicans have been remiss in not acknowledging how essentially conservative the Clinton economic policy was. But I also think that Bartlett is remiss in not acknowledging that most of the things he praises were the result of the Clinton Administration AND a Republican Congress.
Obama's economic team, like Clinton's, is essentially mainstream if not conservative in the strictest sense of the word (which, in my vocabulary, doesn't include dogmatic supply-siders). A couple of months ago, I kidded Congressman DeFazio that I probably like Obama's economic team better than he does. He laughed, but didn't disagree.