Why Everyone Should Want a Public Health Care Option
I heard a very interesting discussion of our health care system this evening on NPR.
On the show, health care reform was framed like so: the government plays either the role of financier or the role of insurer.
In the role of financier, the government helps subsidize health care in some manner for those who can’t afford it. They provide the money.
In the role of insurer, the government actually provides the insurance to cover those who can’t afford it. Instead of directly providing the money, they provide the insurance to the needy. This is similar to how Medicaid functions.
Conservatives in the media will talk about how government should stay out of health care altogether, but this is not the debate going on in Washington right now. The debate going on is between whether the government should only take on the role of financier or whether government should act in the role of insurer.
They call this the public option versus the private option, but it is really two different options of government intervention.
If the government only gets involved as a financier, as the health insurance companies want, then the money would go from the government to the insurers (who would take a cut off the top) to the people.
In this scenario, the insurance companies do very little other than play the role of middle man and take a portion of the money.
Why not cut out the middle man?
No matter how efficient an insurance company is, they won’t be as efficient as in the scenario where they aren’t needed at all.
This is why I believe in a government sponsored health insurance plan. Cut out the middle man.
Now of course the health insurance companies are going to lobby against this. If you could get access to the government’s money and take a cut off the top without doing much, wouldn’t you lobby for the money?
The most efficient use of government funds to provide health care to all would be for the government to offer a program similar to Medicare where the government acts as the insurer and does not need to pay a middle man.
akadjianTopics: Rebuilding the Middle Class, Honest and Effective Government | No Comments »
John McCain, Freedom, and Iran
John McCain just seems bitter lately.
First, he lost the election and now he’s starting down the Dick Cheney, grumpy ex-Vice President road of griping and swiping.
McCain stated:
“We are seeking, as we have throughout the world, a free and fair election. This is obviously one that is corrupted.”
McCain believes that our government should come out in favor of Moussavi and his supporters and against the current government.
Trouble is, just about every expert on the subject agrees that this would aid the current government rather than help to overthrow it.
It sounds complicated, but you have to take into account the amount of hatred for the United States in countries like Venezuela and Iran. Leaders in these countries use popular resentment against the U.S. in order to be elected.
If the U.S. is viewed as helping the resistance, this would actually damage the efforts for Democracy. President Obama seems to understand the situation and has helped the resistance by not coming out in favor of either side.
This site shows a list of Middle East experts who outline the situation and explain why we don’t want to be seen as meddling.
On the surface, McCain’s argument seems to make sense. We should support Democracy wherever possible. The trouble is, that once you dig a little deeper, we need to realize that the best way to actually support Democracy in Iran is to not appear to be behind the resistance movement.
For once, I have to say, I agree with Pat Buchanan and admire his speaking out against the grain of neo-Conservative thought:
“When your adversary is making a fool of himself, get out of the way… U.S. fulminations will change nothing in Tehran. But they would enable the regime to divert attention to U.S. meddling in Iran’s affairs and portray the candidate robbed in this election, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, as a poodle of the Americans.”
The Iranian movement has to be from and about the Iranians.
akadjianTopics: Political Strategy, A Successful End to the War | No Comments »
Why Anti-Smoking Legislation Will Succeed While Health Care Reform is in Danger
This past week the Senate passed an anti-smoking bill that will give regulators new powers in the fight against smoking.
On the surface, passage of this bill seems like a liberal victory. Until you look closer.
Philip Morris (now Altria) has come out in favor of the bill. Now why would Altria support legislation to regulate the tobacco industry unless it somehow benefited them?
Here’s how it benefits them:
- Many advertising venues and marketing practices are banned - This effectively locks in Marlboro’s 50% share of the market
- Costs of compliance favor large manufacturers over small - Again, a boost to Altria
- And, if the FDA approves some cigarettes as “safer,” Altria may benefit first as they have the biggest research pockets
So basically Altria is rolling the dice. They figure they may be better off trying to work with the government than against them. In 1998, the company spent $100 million fighting FDA regulation when John McCain introduced it. This time, they figure that they can come through this legislation in better shape than their competitors.
Now in addition to consumer groups like the American Lung Association, the other huge lobbying force in the fight to regulate cigarettes is health insurers.
Health insurers and the other groups that support the bill say that it can significantly reduce the 400,000 deaths and $100 billion in healthcare costs attributed every year to smoking.
Personally, I believe this bill will help reduce smoking among young people because of the bans on advertising and the ability to place limits on nicotine levels. However, the reason this bill will pass with such broad support is because of the backing of companies like Altria and the health insurance industry.
What is most interesting is that the usual conservative argument of “less government” takes a backseat when the big corporate lobbies get behind the legislation. You will still hear the occasional gripe against regulation, but it won’t be amplified the way it would if these corporations opposed the legislation.
Now consider health care.
Who is for it?
- The uninsured
- Americans frustrated with the failure of the current system
- Small business owners (not all, but I think many favor reform to clamp down on the cost of health insurance)
Who is against it?
- The American Medical Association (representing 1/3 of US doctors) because they fear it will cut what they can charge (though the AMA in the past has pushed for a form of universal coverage)
- The health insurance lobby (that fears competing with a government sponsored plan or any form of regulation)
- The U.S. Chamber of Commerce (representing more than 3 million businesses)
With these large business groups opposing any type of reform because it will cut into their profits, you can bank that we are going to hear the following ad nauseum about any attempts to reform the health care system:
- It’s socialized medicine
- The government limits flexibility and innovation
- We need market-driven reform
- The private sector can do better than government
Again, setting aside for a moment a discussion of the argument itself, it’s just interesting to look at how and when it is used.
Any of these arguments could be used to fight anti-smoking legislation. But you won’t hear it. At least not as much.
Where you will hear these arguments is to fight any form of health care reform. Even though with escalating costs and 50 million uninsured, some type of reform seems badly needed.
Let’s hope, like the Chamber of Commerce hopes, that some type of compromise can be worked out this year that will move the health care industry in the right direction.
akadjianTopics: Political Strategy, Honest and Effective Government | 1 Comment »
Idiocracy
CPAC has been going on this week and interestingly enough, I happened to rent the movie Idiocracy on Friday.
The narrator has one of my favorite quotes as Joe, the hero of the movie, explores 500 years into the future for the first time:
Unaware of what year it was, Joe wandered the streets desperate for help. But the English language had deteriorated into a hybrid of hillbilly, valleygirl, inner-city slang and various grunts. Joe was able to understand them, but when he spoke in an ordinary voice he sounded pompous and faggy to them.
I couldn’t help thinking of the CPAC conference and some of the crazy things people at it have been saying this week.
1) If you disagree with someone, call them a socialist or a communist and repeat a lie that they weren’t born in the United States.
2) Excuse away the past 8 years with a “my bad.”
“Tonight, we tell America: we know the past, we know we did wrong. My bad. But we go forward in appreciation of the values that brought us to this point.” - Michael Steele, No hiphopopotamus.
3) “I got to get through this speech before federal officials come and arrest me for practicing capitalism.” - Mitt Romney, (”Sure, Mitt. Poor guy. The government showed it was out to get financial people like him by handing them a check for $750 billion.)
The folks at CPAC claimed that the conference was about ideas, but most of it sounded like the same old “if you’re not with us you’re a communist” propaganda conservatives used during the election.
The dittoheads go wild.
Communism bad. Rush say they communist. Obama has funny name. He communist.
And whenever anyone spoke in rational voices to them, the conservatives at CPAC booed them as faggy, communist, and liberal.
akadjianTopics: Objective Media | No Comments »
Great Liberal Cover Ups in American History
Gotta love this Tom Tomorrow cartoon.
akadjianTopics: Objective Media | No Comments »
The Latest GOP Phantom War
I received this alarmist e-mail from NewsMax today:
Radio Insiders, Congressmen Aim to Stop Fairness Doctrine
Moves are afoot to head off any Democratic efforts to reinstate the so-called Fairness Doctrine and stifle conservative talk radio.
A group of radio insiders has formed the Free Radio Coalition to fight the reinstatement, Radio America President James Roberts said on Tuesday.
Radio America talk show host and former San Diego Mayor Roger Hedgecock will chair the coalition.
“The reinstatement of the misnamed Fairness Doctrine would constitute a massive assault on our cherished First Amendment rights and should be of concern to all Americans, regardless of their political or religious persuasion,” Hedgecock said.
I love these e-mails. Moves are afoot. Plots are being hatched. Conservative talk radio is about to be stifled!
Probably my favorite quote calls the Fairness Doctrine “misnamed.” Misnamed like, I don’t know, “NewsMax”?
But there is no legislation to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
Nothing.
Conservatives are going berserk over nothing. Break out the tin hats.
Liberals are everywhere. Surrounding them. Making them do things they don’t want to do. Like accepting money from the government. It’s a conspiracy.
What’s a conservative to do?
Pass some legislation to prevent something that is not being considered from even being considered.
Huh?
It’s a win-win. Republicans create a phony enemy, drum up outrage on all the conservative talk shows, and then defeat it before it ever attacks them. How can they lose? (Especially when they’ve already won.)
Now you may be asking yourself, why aren’t Republicans worrying about real problems like the economy?
The answer is simple. That would require work. Work and collaborating with Democrats. Nothing is more distasteful then collaborating with Democrats. It would make much more sense to let the world go to hell then to work with Democrats.
Vanquishing phantom enemies, however, requires no work and makes Republican politicians look good to people who believe in phantom enemies because they listen to too much talk radio.
Maybe Democrats should introduce the Fair Game Act - legislation that makes it legal to hunt and shoot Republicans from April through September each year.
akadjianTopics: Objective Media | No Comments »
Government’s Role: According to Wall Street
When times are good, Wall Street wants the government to get out of the way so that the market can work.
Translation: Privatize the profit.
When times are bad, Wall Street wants the government to step in and play a role in the economy.
Translation: Socialize the risk.
If you watch, you can hear this philosophy reiterated subtly again and again by business executives.
“The biggest thing I see here is the incredible pessimism. The government is doing a lousy job of alleviating fears.” - Keith Springer, president of Capital Financial Advisory Services
During good times, these same financial advisors were encouraging the government to step aside so that the market could work.
The more you see it, the more you realize that it’s not a double standard, but rather what Wall Street expects the role of the government to be: privatize the profit, socialize the risk: subsidize businesses and deregulate during good times, distribute the losses and take responsibility during the bad.
And, in Wall Street’s defense, if they can get away with it, why not keep asking for subsidies?
akadjianTopics: Fiscal Responsibility | No Comments »
Best and the Worst of the Bailout
With so much garbage commentary being thrown around about the bailouts, it’s interesting to see a writer in a very popular forum talking about some of the real good and bad of the bailout.
First, the good:
- Regulation is necessary to reduce systemic risk - What happens without regulation? Too much risk leading to a collapse of the system.
- It is actually cheaper for us as taxpayers to save the banks then to let them go under. Why? Because of FDIC insurance, we would bankrupt the country in payouts.
- The TED Spread is down from a high of 5 to 1 meaning banks are more willing to lend to each other.
Now, the bad:
- Government intervention distorts the market. By using federal bailout money, a company like AIG can undercut competitors.
Topics: Fiscal Responsibility | No Comments »
No Oversight, Chaos, and Breathtaking Sums of Money
“You had no oversight, chaos and breathtaking sums of money. And over all of that was the notion that failure was O.K. It doesn’t get any better for criminals than that set of circumstances.” - Senator Claire McCaskill describing the operation to rebuild Iraq.
I was glad to see the Justice Department and the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction are looking in to what happened to the $125 billion which was supposed to go to help rebuild Iraq.
Senator McCaskill’s statement, however, not only seemed to apply to Iraq, but characterizes the conservative movement over the past 30 years.
How? Conservatives have pushed for years to drown the government in the bathtub.
You hear it in many forms from their marketing department: smaller government, let the markets work, the private sector creates jobs, etc.
These are all nice sound bites to help them achieve their overarching goal of destroying the government.
The trouble is that once they get into government, this leaves them no incentive to do a good job.
The more they screw up the government, the more they can make the case to destroy it.
In conservative speak, it’s a win-win.
This is why conservatives have no qualms about:
- Deficits - If the government goes bankrupt, conservatives win. Meanwhile, while we’re in charge, let’s give the money to our big industry backers.
- Nepotism/Favoritism - Qualifications don’t matter to conservatives so much as whether you are a believer in the conservative cause because if you fail in government, you really succeed.
- Lobbying - You’ve got to pay to play and if this is the way business is conducted, then it is the way business is conducted.
In this respect, when McCaskill says it doesn’t get any better for criminals, she might as well be comparing the conservative free market to a black market.
This is the end goal conservatives have in mind: a black market with no oversight or government regulation.
Is it any wonder salmonella is turning up in peanut butter, a coal ash flood occurred in Tennessee, and a staggering amount of toys made in China are being recalled due to lead paint and other safety concerns?
These are natural consequences of destroying the government and letting industry govern itself.
The role of government, contrary to conservative opinion, should be to make sure there are sensible regulations in place and that these are enforced. This is one way to ensure that capitalism works for all.
akadjianTopics: Fiscal Responsibility, Honest and Effective Government | No Comments »
They Can’t Deport Us All
T-shirt seen at the U.S. vs. Mexico soccer game in Columbus.
Mexico actually lost the soccer game, but I’m scoring the public relations battle 1-0 in their favor.
akadjianTopics: Justice and Equality | No Comments »