January 9-10, 2008
Jan 09 11:43 McCain the Favorite? Jan 09 14:42 A Defining Atrocity Jan 09 18:40 The Battle We Can't Afford to Lose Jan 09 23:11 Romney Goes Dark in FL, SC Jan 09 23:42 Another Important Endorsement Goes Fred's Way Jan 10 00:45 Fred Proposes Serious Reform Agenda Jan 10 19:56 Socialized Health Care Machine Jan 10 23:37 Debate Notes
McCain the Favorite?
That's the gospel according to Robert Novak . I'm not buying into that because of this statistic :
Voters who supported McCain and those who supported projected runner-up Romney differed significantly on what issues they feel are most important, exit polling shows.When I read that last night, I said that that says everything about where McCain flames out. Immigration is his Achilles Heel, harming him far more than his involvement in the Gang of 14 or McCain-Feingold. It won't play well in the Heartland, where illegal immigration is imposing severe financial burdens on taxpayers.
Forty-six percent of those who supported McCain ranked the war in Iraq the most important. Meanwhile, voters who supported Romney overwhelmingly felt immigration was the most important issue.
McCain has been a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq, but co-sponsored comprehensive immigration reform legislation that drew the ire of many conservatives in his party. The legislation failed to pass Congress. Romney has been taking a tough stance on immigration.
Here in Minnesota, illegal immigration is contributing to the dramatic rise of property taxes because schools are becoming overburdened. Nationwide, the effects of illegal immigrants visiting ERs is driving health care costs through the roof.
Here's where I think Novak goes wrong:
McCain won a majority of registered Republican voters here as well as New Hampshire independents who voted in the GOP primary (as he did in 2000 when he swamped George W. Bush). Romney's attacks on McCain's liberal immigration policies were popular with Republican voters, but did not resonate with McCain's independent base.McCain won New Hampshire because their Republicans aren't as conservative as South Carolina Republicans. And once Michigan is in the past, independants won't be able to prop McCain up.
While McCain and Romney are slugging it out in Michigan, Fred will be connecting in South Carolina, putting McCain, Romney and Huckabee at a slight disadvantage there. The northern momentum isn't likely to have a big effect in South Carolina.
South Carolina comes after that on Jan. 19, with Huckabee running in his first Southern primary. But there are substantially fewer evangelicals in South Carolina than Iowa. McCain's South Carolina campaign is led by Sen. Lindsey Graham, who has recruited much of the 2000 organization.Lindsey Graham's support isn't as impressive as people are predicting. He's tied to the Gang of 14 and comprehensive immigration reform like McCain. That's why South Carolina's Republicans hoped to find a primary challenger to run against him this year.
The truth is that McCain's maverick streak doesn't play well within the GOP. That will become painfully apparent in the next 3 weeks.
CORRECTION: I've been saying that Michigan is the last place where independents can bail John McCain out. I was wrong. South Carolina also allows crossover voting.
I still stand by my opinion that South Carolina Republicans voters are more conservative than New Hampshire Republicans.
Posted Wednesday, January 9, 2008 2:54 PM
No comments.
A Defining Atrocity
Diana West's latest column does a great job of highlighting what we've been saying here at MMG for months. It's great having Ms. West on board. The more voices talking about Murtha's disgraceful actions, the better.
This got started way back in May, 2006. John Murtha, one of the most corrupt politicians in US history, told a wrapt audience of Beltway reporters that US Marines "killed innocent civilians in cold blood."What a difference a year has made since charges came down at the end of 2006. The New York Times in October mourned, I mean, noted, the shift: "Last year, when accounts of the killings of 24 Iraqis in Haditha by a group of Marines came to light, it seemed that the Iraq war had produced its defining atrocity, just as the conflict in Vietnam had spawned the My Lai massacre a generation ago."
No "defining atrocity"? Gee, that's too bad. The Times went on to lament that the presiding military investigator recommended that murder charges against the ranking enlisted Marine, Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, be dropped. And this, the newspaper bellyached, "may well have ended prosecutors' chances of winning any murder convictions in the killings."
No murder convictions? Well, boo - the heck - hoo.
Rep. John Murtha, an influential Pennsylvania lawmaker and outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, said today Marines had "killed innocent civilians in cold blood" after allegedly responding to a roadside bomb ambush that killed a Marine during a patrol in Haditha, Iraq, Nov. 19. The incident is still under investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and Multi-National Forces Iraq.As the cases moved through their respective Article 32 hearings, recommendations were made that charges be dropped against Justin Sharratt, Randy Stone and Lucas McConnell, recommendations that were accepted.
----------
"It's much worse than was reported in Time magazine," Murtha, a Democrat, former Marine colonel and Vietnam war veteran, told reporters on Capitol Hill. "There was no firefight. There was no [bomb] that killed those innocent people," Murtha explained, adding there were "about twice as many" Iraqis killed than Time had reported.
I put together a timeline to show the disingenuousness of Murtha's statements. Here's where I nailed Murtha the hardest:
The next day, Murtha was asked about the sourcing for his accusations. Here's his answer:The Marine Corps later corrected the record:
Asked about his sources during a midday briefing on Iraq policy in the Capitol, Murtha confidently replied, "All the information I get, it comes from the commanders, it comes from people who know what they're talking about." Although Murtha said that he had not read any investigative reports by the military on the incident, he stressed, "It's much worse than reported in Time magazine."
Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, is being sued by one of the accused Marines for libel. He had told The Philadelphia Inquirer that Gen. Michael Hagee had given him the information on which he based his charge that Marines killed innocent civilians.I said then what I've believed throughout: that John Murtha's inventing this stuff and he's getting caught doing it.
But a spokesman for the Marine Corps said Hagee briefed Murtha on May 24 about Haditha. Murtha had made comments on the case as early as May 17. On May 17, for example, he said at a news conference, "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."A spokeswoman for Murtha was not immediately available. ( Sounds familiar .)
I also pointed out that Murtha initially said that he'd gotten his information from "the commanders", then said he'd gotten his information from Gen. Hagee. Those statements are contradictions. Commanders serve in the battlefield. At the time, Gen. Hagee was the Marine Corps Commandant, which is a Pentagon job.
Posted Wednesday, January 9, 2008 2:44 PM
No comments.
The Battle We Can't Afford to Lose
Last week, Drew Emmer voice his concern about the left's ability to gin up enthusiasm for their causes. We should thank Drew for his concern. As I wrote here , I came face-to-face with one such shadowy organization. Its name is the Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition . Here's what they stand for:
Vision StatementGMHCC's vision statement should disturb every levelheaded Minnesota voter, regardless of party affiliation. The first question sane individuals should ask is what criteria GMHCC is using in defining " the great economic inequalities in our society ." That's an awfuly subjective phrase. It's worth remembering what the woman who attended Monday night's forum said:
The Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition represents the interests of all citizens in Greater Minnesota on health care and other issues of economic and social justice.
- We seek changes that promote the health and well-being of all citizens and correct the great economic inequalities in our society .
- We seek to help build a society that lives out the values of compassion, integrity, meaningful relationships, and mutual accountability.
"We don't need health insurance. We need health care."Prior to saying that, she railed about how "incrementalism had ruined" our health care system. I talked with this gentle soul after the event, at which time she gave me a 'factsheet' titled "Single-Payer Universal Healthcare FAQ." Here's one of the accusations made in the factsheet:
Q: How is the current non-system organized?If you think this sounds bizarre, you'd better brace yourself because it gets worse:
A: The health care insurance industry's sole reason for existence is to make a profit for its onwers, its stockholders. The best way to maximize profits is to provide as little actual health care as possible. Sell a product (health care) but deliver as little of it as possible. Isure only healthy people. Drop those who have chronic illnesses or develop catastrophic health problems. Use these profits for obscene executive salaries. Advertising. Administration. Lawyers. Clerks. Accountants. Denial experts. Stock dividends. Lobbyists. Campaign contributions. They call these expenses overhead.
Q: How much does this overhead add up to?
A: Up to 30 percent or more, which means that only 70 percent of every dollar spent for health insurance is available for actual health care. With a Single-Payer system, these costs could actually be used for health care. (King, have at that BS if you'd like.) The savings amount to $630 billion per year, which is way more than enough to provide comprehensive health care for the 54 million uninsured and underinsured.
Q: Well, aren't these overhead costs just the cost of doing business?
A: No. Medicare's overhead is in the 1 to 2 percent range. This means that 98 cents on the dollar goes to health care.
Q: How would Single-Payer work?Government is good at these two tasks? Compared with what? Compared with which successful company?
A: A public agency would be created to organize health care financing, collecting money and paying the bills. Government is very good at these two tasks. The health care insurance industry would be eliminated as we know it. Insurance companies that currently intrude as a barrier between the patient & doctor. Health care costs would be controlled by a process of negotiation with drug companies, hospitals, doctors & other providers creating a system that would be reasonable & fair to all.
I'd also refer back to my post from Monday's health care forum . Here's what a retired gentleman told the audience:
One gentleman talked about how he had to call into the state at 9:00 am on behalf of his son, who has a mental health illness. This gentleman said that sometimes the lines were all busy. Other times, he'd get through, then get put on hold for several hours.This gentleman's testimony destroys the credibility of the statement that " Government is very good at these two tasks. " As I said then, private companies wouldn't have gotten away with such worthless customer service. They'd go bankrupt inside of a year if they treated their customers like that.
The government's customer service, as a rule, is next to worthless. This isn't questioned. It's fact. It's a sloppy mess. Please tell me how public employees are better employees than private sector employees.
Let's take a step back, though. This is just one liberal advocacy group. Look at the amount of misinformation that they put out in a single 'factsheet'. That's what we're fighting against. The larger point I must make is this: We can't afford to have anyone in the conservative coalition sitting on their hands this election season.
Conservatives stayed home in large numbers in 2006. If there's a repeat of that in 2008, radical groups will get these types of unsustainable policies enacted into law. If you think this isn't a genuine threat, here's another dose of misinformation on the 'factsheet':
Q: Wouldn't this be socialized medicine?Here's the definition of socialism according to Dictionary.com:
A: No. The government wouldn't own the health care system. Just as the government doesn't own the health care system with Medicare. Doctors, hospitals, drug companies, etc., would all remain private and be owned as they are now. However, they would have to negotiate with the public agency for what they could charge for their products and services and, if they choose, to remain outside the system, they would be free to do so.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.Now let's compare that definition against the American Medical Student Association's description of the benefits of single-payer health care:
Although there are some advantages and some disadvantages to each system , universal health care confers the greatest number of advantages. They include:
- Every individual would receive necessary medical coverage, regardless of age, health, employment, or socio-economic status.
- Health care spending would decline because centralized billing procedures would reduce administrative overhead. Consequently, a larger percentage of the cost of health care would actually be spent on patient treatment.
- Increased access to preventive care and the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs. However, the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement.
- Patients can choose their physician and physicians can choose the most appropriate treatment for their patients.
- There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care. The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care and not profit maximization.
Examine the last half of the third bulletpoint:
However, the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement.Might "lead to" "a slowing down of technological advancement?" Let's apply some truth to that statement. Here's what happens in the real world:
The corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies will lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement.This isn't debatable. It's settled fact. It's been documented throughout history. Wishing it weren't so doesn't mean it isn't true. Let's also admit that the fifth bulletpoint is tied directly with the third point:
There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care. The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care and not profit maximization.When companies' incentives for producing goods and services (profits) are dramatically reduced, their motivation for producing important goods and services drop dramatically, too. It's one of the fundamental principles of capitalism. Let's also ridicule American Medical Student Association's opening statement:
Although there are some advantages and some disadvantages to each system, universal health care confers the greatest number of advantages.What's described in points three and five isn't just "some disadvantage"; it's the biggest flaw (some might say fatal flaw) of single-payer.
This shouldn't be a partisan issue but it is. The DFL will intruduce, and seriously fight for, single-payer. Their first step is in getting a constitutional amendment added to the ballot for this November's election making health care a right in Minnesota. Here's the text of the Constitutional amendment :
"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to state that every resident of Minnesota has the right to health care and that it is the responsibility of the governor and the legislature to implement all necessary legislation to ensure affordable health care?There's nothing implicit about this. It's explicitly saying that Minnesota voters to approve this constitutional amendment and for the legislature to be legally bound to pass government-run health care.
Yes .......
No .......
Here's what Sec. 3 says:
If the constitutional amendment proposed in section 1 is approved by the people at the 2008 general election, the legislature and governor must enact legislation to implement the constitutional amendment by July 1, 2012.What the DFL is doing is attempting to legislate via constitutional amendment. Not only would this amendment make health care a right, it would mandate state run health care.
The choices are straightforward: Sit on your hands during the 2008 campaign or work hard to defeat this DFL power grab.
Frankly, that decision is a no-brainer.
Originally posted Wednesday, January 9, 2008, revised 20-Jan 7:03 PM
Comment 1 by Greg at 09-Jan-08 10:30 PM
Since the Compassionate State of Minnesota is providing your healthcare, it is only fair and in the public interest that your behavior conform to established healthy norms: No tobacco, alcohol, transfat consumption or other "risky" behaviors, as we may define them in the future. You are restricted to one fast food meal per week.
If your genetic code suggests a propensity to certain disorders, your freedom to reproduce will be restricted to a single offspring. This unfortunate restriction is designed to improve the overall gene pool and will benefit society by reducing future health care costs. Your committment to future generations is expected and appreciated.
Finally, required calisthenics for your neighborhood begin at 6:00 a.m., comrade. Participation will be reported monthly to the Director or Compassion in Health Care Services.
Thanks to our vision and committment to you, you will be happier and healthier and live a longer and more beautiful life in the great republic of the people in Minnesota.
Romney Goes Dark in FL, SC
According to Marc Ambinder, Mitt Romney's campaign has gone dark in Florida and South Carolina , which is leading to a number of interesting questions. Here's what Ambinder is reporting:
Up on television in Florida and South Carolina through yesterday, Mitt Romney is not running any television ads in those states now, according to a Republican with knowledge of the traffic purchases in the state.That isn't the only bad news for Mitt. According to this Gallup Poll , Mitt doesn't break double digits:
Romney's campaign hasn't booked any television time in those states, either.
And it's probably for a good reason: Romney needs to focus all of his resources in Michigan.
But opponents will wonder: is Romney hedging his bets? Does he not want to spend money in South Carolina and Florida unless he wins Michigan and has a reason to stay in the race?
Among Republicans, Huckabee has jumped from 16% of the vote in December 2007 to 25% as of this polling. Coupled with the loss of support for former front-runner Rudy Giuliani, Huckabee is now the leader among Republicans nationally, with a 5-point lead over Giuliani and 6-point lead over John McCain (who has gained 5 points since December). Mitt Romney, after failing to win in Iowa, is now in fifth place nationally with just 9% of the vote , which is his lowest percentage since early October.What's worse is that this polling was done before Tuesday's New Hampshire primary. If you combine these bits of information, it isn't a stretch to think that Mitt isn't in this for the long haul. His campaign might end Tuesday in Michigan.
Of course, there's alot that can still happen between this evening and Tuesday night so we can't write Mitt out yet. What we can say is that it's sounding like Mitt thinks he's nearing the end of the road.
Actually, I have another idea that's worth looking at. John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, is up for re-election this year. Mitt's a proven vote-getter in Massachusetts. I'd be perfectly willing to support Mitt in that situation.
Posted Wednesday, January 9, 2008 11:12 PM
No comments.
Another Important Endorsement Goes Fred's Way
According to this David Brody article , Fred Thompson has picked up another high profile endorsement for South Carolina:
Judge Paul Pressler, one of the leaders of the Southern Baptist reformation, has endorsed Thompson. Concerning Huckabee, Pressler told the Wall Street Journal's John Fund, "I know of no conservative he appointed while he headed the Arkansas Baptist Convention."This is a big get for the Thompson campaign. It's easy to picture how Judge Pressler's endorsement will help Sen. Thompson more than Lindsey Graham's support will help Sen. McCain.
A story to watch is whether the Evangelical vote in South Carolina will sway the same way as Iowa. Read below from CNS News.com about that:
In an interview with Cybercast News Service, Mike DeVine, a former state Democratic Party official in South Carolina and a columnist for The Charlotte Observer, noted that the Republican Party there is markedly different from that in Iowa. "The GOP in South Carolina that I lost to a lot is mainstream conservatives," he said. "They're Reagan conservatives.. This includes evangelicals, they're mostly Southern Baptists. A lot of military too, much different from Iowa."
"I don't think that Huckabee will do nearly as well" in South Carolina as he did in Iowa, said DeVine. "Some of his views are simply anathema to the conservative philosophy of the state. He's shown some weaknesses. The people aren't going to just vote for him because he's a Baptist. They won't be nearly as receptive to identity politics."
Another thing that must be factored into this equation is that Huckabee's positions are now being exposed. The more his liberal positions get exposed, the more we should expect his support in South Carolina to slip.
It's still early to tell how things will play in South Carolina but Pressler's endorsement, coupled with the NRLC's mailing on Fred's behalf , certainly enables Fred to campaign from a position of strength.
UPDATE: Here's the YouTube of Paul Pressler endorsing Fred:
Originally posted Wednesday, January 9, 2008, revised 10-Jan 1:16 AM
No comments.
Fred Proposes Serious Reform Agenda
Fred Thompson has offered more detailed plans to fix what ails this country than all the other candidates combined. Now he's posted his plan for balancing the budget . Here's the highlights of the plan:
- Limit Non-Defense Federal Spending to Inflation. Federal spending is expected to grow an average of 4.5 percent each year over the next five years. This growth is more than twice as fast as the estimated rate of inflation! Slowing the rate of growth in federal spending would help the federal government balance its books. Further cost savings can be achieved by limiting increases in the annual rates of growth for mandatory federal spending programs.
- Implement a One-Year Hiring Freeze Pending Completion of Federal Government Strategic Assessment. Initiate a senior-level Administration assessment of the federal government's activities to determine their proper alignment with national priorities. This assessment will permit a re-shaping of the federal government to best address these priorities. Until that assessment is completed, institute a one-year freeze on the hiring of all non-essential civilian workers and contractors. This will give a new Administration time to assess its personnel requirements in order to "right size" the federal workforce, commensurate with national priorities, to match staffing and contracting needs to agency responsibilities across the executive branch.
- Conduct a Comprehensive Cost-Benefit Analysis of All Federal Programs . Over the past few years, the Office of Management and Budget's Program Assessment Rating Tool has found that many federal programs are ineffective or only moderately effective. With the aid of rigorous cost-benefit analysis and relying on the Government Performance and Results Act, the President must work with Congress to determine which federal programs to eliminate, reduce, combine, or place on probation.
My friend King will especially approve of conducting a comprehensive CBA of all federal programs. Frankly, that type of clear-headed thinking should've been implemented decades ago. I'm sure Democrats will criticize Sen. Thompson's plan but that's ok. When they criticize Fred's plan, we'll simply ask what they have against efficient government. (The dirty little secret is that they hate efficient spending because that's how they pay off their political allies.)
Buckle up because that's just the first part of Fred's plan. Here's another important, and impressive, portion of his plan:
Enact Meaningful Earmark Reform
Congressional earmarks add up to tens of billions of dollars each year. In Fiscal Year 2006 alone, the cost to the American taxpayer was more than $64 billion. Even more disconcerting is the fact that many earmarks do not benefit the America people but only serve to support special interests. To accomplish real and meaningful earmark reform, the following actions must be taken:
- Provide President with Line-Item Veto Authority. Congress can provide this authority without a Constitutional amendment. Such authority would better control spending and prevent the use of public funding for wasteful earmarks.
- Direct Agencies to Ignore "Soft" Earmarks. "Soft" earmarks are those included in Congressional report language, but not in actual legislation. Failure to include such earmarks in the bill language itself makes it easier for Members of Congress to hide their earmarks and prevents the full House and Senate from voting on them. Federal agencies must not fund these "soft" earmarks unless they otherwise meet agency standards for a funding award.
- Propose Legislation on Earmark Procedures. Promote greater transparency by urging Congress to approve legislation that requires the posting of all earmarks on the Internet for the public to view at least 24 hours before the underlying bill is brought to the floor for consideration.
Like I said, these are just some of the highlights of Fred's fiscal responsibility package. By comparison, here's the entire contents of Gov. Romney's Spending page :
The Federal government must stop its borrowing and spending binge. The debt is a burden on our economy, our currency, our foreign policy, and our future.Here's the other quote from Mitt's page:
This is beyond pork barrel spending. We must address entitlement programs, not just to save money, but to give Americans confidence in their future.
"Every legislator and politician knows this spending can't be justified, so why do they do it? Because it gets politicians praised, and re-elected.
There's no courage involved in spending more money. Drawing a line on spending is hard and fraught with criticism. When I vetoed $458 million of excessive spending in the budget this spring, I knew that community newspapers across the Commonwealth would decry my elimination of local pet projects. And, I knew that the Legislature would over ride most of my vetoes. In fact, they over rode all of them, to a chorus of community acclaim. But someone has to say no."
- Governor Romney, Boston Globe, September 12, 2006
"I don't want to add entitlements. I want to find ways to reform our entitlement programs."Fred's page is full of details that tell voters that he's thought this through and he's serious about balancing the budget and restoring the GOP's image of fiscal responsibility. Mitt's page isn't the blueprint of a comprehensive reform agenda.
- Governor Romney, Boston Globe, January 27, 2006)
Expect conservatives to start rallying to Fred once they examine this. Fred's plan is the agenda of a serious reformer. This also spotlights the fact that Fred was part of the congress that balanced the budget 4 years in a row. When Fred chaired the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, his committee assembled a report listing over 1,000 programs that were either inefficient or didn't serve a useful purpose. Let's see anyone else match that record.
That's a track record and agenda that'll make Ron Paul look like a fiscal liberal. That's the track record and agenda of a serious man seeking the highest office in the land.
Posted Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:47 AM
Comment 1 by Matt Abe at 10-Jan-08 10:00 AM
Remember, America, we are electing a President, not a personality! Let's grow up and vet these people accordingly!
Socialized Health Care Machine
This week, I saw the DFL's 21st Century health care plan when I went to Tarryl Clark's health care forum. After the meeting, I talked with an employee of the Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition. I've discovered that they're part of a bigger socialist coalition. Another organization in that coalition is Minnesotans for Universal Health Care Coalition. That's a name I remembered from this fall. They sponsored a health care forum last September . Let's start, though, by reviewing what the GMHCC sees as the future of health care :
Although there are some advantages and some disadvantages to each system , universal health care confers the greatest number of advantages. They include:Now let's compare that with what was said at the St. Cloud Forum :
- Every individual would receive necessary medical coverage, regardless of age, health, employment, or socio-economic status.
- Health care spending would decline because centralized billing procedures would reduce administrative overhead. Consequently, a larger percentage of the cost of health care would actually be spent on patient treatment.
- Increased access to preventive care and the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs. However, the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement.
- Patients can choose their physician and physicians can choose the most appropriate treatment for their patients.
- There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care. The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care and not profit maximization.
"The doctors are wonderful. You get good care. And it just makes me mad when they talk about how they have to come over here to get good care & that's not true."Now let's compare that with what was said at MUHCC's September health care forum:
After rambling a bit, Ms. Linus continued, saying this:
"Now they say that Canadians have to come over here for good treatment. Well don't you believe it. Don't you believe it one bit. That government is so good to all its people. I don't care if you're rich or poor. They take care of you. And so many of the people come & they talk crap about how awful their system is. Well, don't you believe it. Single payer is wonderful if it's run right."
Conyers' legislative aide, Joel Segal, broke down the national health insurance plan for the audience, a packed theater of union members, legislators, members of the Minnesota State Nurses Association, health care advocacy groups and many people for whom the current health care system had failed.If that isn't government-run healthcare, then I don't know what is. That's what's heading our direction if conservatives sit on their hands. That's unacceptable. It's time that we started telling our co-workers, friends and neighbors what's happening.
"The main barrier to care in this country is that you don't have a right to be a patient in the wealthiest country in the world," explained Segal. "You have to either get a job which has insurance, which is a big problem because a lot of people don't have jobs, and even if you do have a job you may not be able to afford the insurance, and even if you do get that insurance it's probably not going to be that good because you're going to have excessive copays, deductibles and bills at the end," he said. "What [House File] 676 seeks to do is to eliminate all barriers to care between the patient and the physician. "
The plan outlined in the bill is not incredibly complicated and simply makes the government the sole health insurer. Insurance premiums would be paid in the form of taxes.
When someone is born, he or she is automatically issued a national health insurance card. That person, throughout a lifetime, can visit any hospital, doctor, mental health provider, or treatment center of the individual's choosing. Physicians and other health care staff are reimbursed within 30 days of services rendered, and that reimbursement is mandated to be at current pay grade which, according to Segal, would result in a raise after the 25 percent cost of working with multiple health plans, formularies and payment systems is eliminated. Hospitals would also receive "global budgets" each year based on previous year's costs.
"Nothing is going to change except there will be no more stock market, investor-owned doctors' offices or hospitals," said Segal.
The House GOP caucus has a saying that's appropriate in this discussion:
If you think that health care is expensive now, wait until it's free.The notion that CanadaCare is "wonderful" and that the Canadian government "takes care such wonderful care" of their people "whether they're rich or poor" is absurd. What Monday's advocates don't talk about is how much they had to raise taxes to pay for their universal health care or that they have to still buy supplemental insurance to cover the things 'universal health care' won't cover.
Let's get serious about something here. When's the last time the federal government proved that it did things better than the private sector, especially in terms of customer service? The answer is pretty similar to the old joke about how many Frenchmen it takes to defend Paris? Nobody knows. It's never been done.
It's important that we understand another important point. Just because these fanatics are advocating wrong-headed policies doesn't mean that their votes count less than conservatives' votes. If we don't work as hard at winning people over as they do, they'll win. If you don't want to live with a single-payer health care system, then you'd better become a intelligent advocate for the free market health care system.
By the way, the Daily Planet article mentions that the audience was packed with "union members" & "legislators..." At the time, I wondered which legislators were there. This afternoon, I found out that one of those legislators was Tarryl's guest John Marty.
Coincidental? I'd bet otherwise.
Originally posted Thursday, January 10, 2008, revised 12-Jan 5:46 PM
Comment 1 by Shimmy at 10-Jan-08 11:52 PM
The U.S. health care system is the best in the world except when your death can be prevented by access
to timely and effective health care.
Debate Notes
RECESSION/ECONOMY:
Romney: We need to invest more into R & D, make the tax cuts permanent, "stop the housing crisis" & reduce our dependence on oil.
McCain: Some jobs aren't coming back, Education is key for those who've lost jobs. We aren't heading for a recession.
CWallace: What about shortterm?
McCain: Cut gov't. spending. He's dissing South Carolinians by talking about Michigan alot. Otherwise nondescript answer.
As expected, Ron Paul gave the wierdest answer, saying that we're in a recession, then saying that "we don't know when it'll come." Then he dug his hole deeper, saying that we've delayed a serious recession.
Fred had a great answer, saying that he'll defend Rudy's tax cut plan because "it sounds an awful lot like the plan I introduced months ago." He then stated that revenues are always more than the so-called experts predict before saying that "we've got too many two-handed economists", saying on the one hand this, on the other hand that.
McCain should get off the climate change kick. That isn't a selling point with conservatives.
Health Care/Abortion Rights question to Mitt:
Mitt: That wasn't my decision. The courts mandated that coverage. "My term as governor was decidedly pro life." (WRONG!!! As I said here , Gov. Romney knew about that decision before signing the bill. He put a higher priority on the signing the health care bill than on preserving life.)
Huckster talks about rebuilding the Reagan coalition, denying he said it was dead. Immediately following that, Fred jumps in with "a bigger point to make." Fred then says that Huckster got the NEA endorsement because "he'd veto a bill for school vouchers. Fred then says that Huckabee has a liberal vision of foreign policy of blame America first. Fred then said that Huckabee has said that he'd sign a federal ban on smoking. "So much for federalism and states rights." Fred also got in a great shot on Huckabee for wanting to "close down Gitm", giving terrorists access to our courts. That'll leave a mark in South Carolina.
Huckabee's brightest spot was in saying that he trusted the Navy commanders in their handling of the incident in the Straits. Fred had a brilliant moment, first sayign that he agreed with "the Governor", then saying if the Iranians "had taken one more step, I think we would've introduced them to those virgins they're always talking about." After a huge roar of applause, Fred then showed his expertise, saying that the Revolutionary Guard clearly was in charge and that "they'll be more frisky."
On the subject of Pakistan, Chris Wallace asked what a Thompson administration would do, especially with polls showing support for Musharraf dropping & people wanting us to cut off aid to Pakistan's military.
Fred: Go against a poll? Nobody does that, do they? Then getting serious, Fred says that stabilizing Pakistan is our highest priority because it's the only Muslim nation with nuclear weapons. Fred said that calling for Musharraf's resignation was irresponsible, asking replace him with who? He also says that we need to pressure Musharraf to go after terrorists in tribal regions more.
Finally Immigration:
Huckabee gave the worst answer, saying "It isn't our job to round up those who are here illegally and put them at the back of the line.
McCain's answer was little better, saying that comprehensive immigration didn't pass because We The People didn't trust government. He's right about that but it goes much deeper than that. We The People rose up because the bill sucked.
Fred's answer that we "need to be a nation of high fences and wide gates and only we get to decide when to open those gates." Fred then described his plan of enforcement through attrition. He'd eliminate sanctuary cities. If they refused to cooperate with the feds, then they'd lose fed discretionary spending money.
Overall, I thought Fred won because he was engaged, gave flawless policy answers and did a great job of drawing contrasts with Huckabee. Huckabee didn't have a good night. Fred ridiculed his foreign policy for sounding like a Democrat (it does.) and for his wanting to close Gitmo.
I thought Mitt was ok when he got the chance to answer but he wasn't asssertive or confident.
McCain was solid in terms of his national security answers but it's obvious that his positions on immigration and climate change aren't helping him with conservatives. His entire strategy is to win independents. After South Carolina, that's a failed strategy. Even in South Carolina, every independent he picks up means another conservative he doesn't appeal to.
UPDATE: I agree with Hugh tonight :
Fred had a great night, Mitt a good one and Rudy did fine as well.Fred, Rudy and Mitt are clearly the best thinkers on stage, though they're both more liberal than Fred. McCain's schtick is rehearsed. It doesn't work on TV. As I said earlier, McCain's strange affection to global warming isn't winning him conservative votes.
Senator McCain struggled, especially on the question of what to do if recession arrives, when he channeled Herbert Hoover and spoke only about cutting spending. His talk of global warming was a bright red flag to conservatives, and his repeating of his "change" answer from Sunday night, that he helped change the policy in Iraq, underscored the impression that he was running through some talking points he understands to be safe. "Not for profit, but for patriotism" was another example of a recycled rhetoric from Sunday. His answer on deferring to captains-at-sea was a strong point, but that was the only one. His halting and often rambling answers and occasional grimaces and winks just don't work on television, and his immigration answers just don't fly. He has had three sub-par debate performances in a row.
The huge loser tonight was Mike Huckabee, thanks largely to Fred and Chris Wallace who peeled the bark off of Huck's ideology. Huck bristled at Wallace at one point, and when pushed on why he raised taxes and spending, barked back, "I raised expectations." That might work with Democrats, though it probably doesn't in this day and age, but it sure doesn't work with Republican voters. Huck's whining about the religion question was also off-putting coming from a candidate who has so often injected religion into this campaign.
UPDATE II: Here's some video of Fred's strongest moments. First, Fred on the Reagan Coalition:
Then on Iranian aggression:
Originally posted Thursday, January 10, 2008, revised 11-Jan 12:53 AM
No comments.
