Much was made by conservatives over Wonderboy's nearly-immediate post-election trip to India, Indonesia, et. al. Rather like running away from the distasteful, though misunderstood results of last Tuesday's Democrat drubbing.
Unfortunately, Fox News' Glenn Beck reported an outlandish figure of $2B for the trip, citing stories that 34 US naval vessels would be standing by off India.
Many aspects of Beck's contended trip details were debunked by others in the media. I'm a little surprised, but more disappointed, that he didn't take more time to check some of the more obvious factual errors. The US Navy spokesperson sounded like he nearly doubled over with laughter at the idea that more than 10% of available fleet vessels would be detailed to a diplomatic visit.
But Beck did point up something notable and troubling. He reported that the First Rookie was meeting with an Indian Chamber of Commerce group. Which is odd, as Beck noted that Wonderboy won't meet with any American Chamber people and, instead, accused them, without proof, of accepting and using foreign donations in the recent Congressional election campaigns.
Watching some of the footage from the Anointed One's risky town hall formatted meetings with apparently-ordinary Indians, you couldn't help but notice his inability to answer tough questions directly there, either. One young woman asked him about Jihads, and he rambled off into an incomprehensible muck of a reply. The poor girl must have been quite disappointed. There was a similar incident a few days later regarding some other social policy issue.
Meanwhile, global leaders are heaping opprobrium on Wonderboy for the US' fiscal policies of huge deficits and excessive spending, coupled with the Fed's currency devaluations via QE2. It seems most of the rest of the world, including Southeast Asia, holds stronger beliefs in free market capitalism than the sitting president of the US.
Truly a sad state of affairs.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Senate Control Through 2012
Several conservative pundits, most notably Fred Barnes, in a recent Wall Street Journal, post-election editorial, have opined that control of the Senate won't necessarily be in Harry Reid's hands for the next two years.
With this month's election already in the rear view mirror, these pundits are already looking forward to November, 2012, when something like twice as many Democratic Senators are up for election, relative to only about 12 Republicans.
With so many Democrats at risk, and the potential for the Tea Party-inspired conservative pressure on spending and reversing liberal social legislation and regulation, these observers contend that perhaps as many as half of these Democrats in the Senate will want to appear more moderate, if not conservative. This could mean surprising majorities for Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Even if a few Northeast liberal Republicans (Snowe, Collins) defect, they could be more than replaced by ten Democratic Senators suddenly allying themselves with McConnell's agenda, at least in some cases.
Should make for an interesting next two years, as House GOP control could occasionally be joined by occasional Senate GOP control, as well.
With this month's election already in the rear view mirror, these pundits are already looking forward to November, 2012, when something like twice as many Democratic Senators are up for election, relative to only about 12 Republicans.
With so many Democrats at risk, and the potential for the Tea Party-inspired conservative pressure on spending and reversing liberal social legislation and regulation, these observers contend that perhaps as many as half of these Democrats in the Senate will want to appear more moderate, if not conservative. This could mean surprising majorities for Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Even if a few Northeast liberal Republicans (Snowe, Collins) defect, they could be more than replaced by ten Democratic Senators suddenly allying themselves with McConnell's agenda, at least in some cases.
Should make for an interesting next two years, as House GOP control could occasionally be joined by occasional Senate GOP control, as well.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
A Detailed View of Medicare's Destruction of US Medical Care
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal included an eye-opening editorial by Richard Hannon, a Blue Cross Blue Shield (of Arizona) SVP, concerning how Medicare contributed to the destruction of US medical care.
Hannon's father-in-law was a doctor. The type of doctor whom Hannon describes as 'a Marcus Welby, M.D.' type who made house calls and treated the poor sick either for free, or for payment in kind. He writes,
"I remember my father-in-law, a real-life Dr. Welby, telling me the exciting news that the federal government was going to start paying him to see seniors- patients who before he had seen for the proverbial chicken (or nothing at all). That fabulous deal was Medicare."
Right at this point, I thought about prior posts I've written on this or my other blog concerning how Medicare was a rather stupidly-designed knock-off, for medicine, of the 1930s Social Security program. They both share direct federal government intrusion into otherwise-private behaviors, and a 'common pot' approach to social services provision. That is, social security has a single general fund out of which payments are made, without any limits on individual payments or an ability to assign individual ownership of assets.
In the case of Medicare, just from Hannon's example, it's easy to see how wrong things went from the very start. Rather than have government, as a third party, pay the doctor, why didn't Washington's political hacks simply means-test Americans for vouchers to be used either to buy health insurance or to fund a health savings account, out of which to pay for medical care?
Hannon continues by describing how Medicare's costs ballooned so exorbitantly that, in 1966, Congress estimated the program's 1990 cost would be $12B, which was laughably under the actual 1990 cost of $107B!
Then came cost controls. But Hannon provides details that simply defy reason and logic,
"To fix the cost problem, Medicare in 1992 began using the "resource based relative value system" (RBRVS), a way of evaluating doctors based on factors such as education, effort and specialized training. But the system didn't consider factors such as outcomes, quality of service, severity or demand.
Today most insurance companies use the Medicare RBRVS because it is perceived as objective. As a result of RBRVS, specialists- especially those who perform a lot of procedures- do extremely well. Primary-care doctors do not."
It makes you want to cry, doesn't it? Most sensible people wouldn't design such a stupid system. And they'd certainly include outcomes and relative demand or incidence of condition and disease when creating algorithms to price medical care.
Hannon goes on to trace the decline of the GP, or, as they are now called, primary-care doctor, under this pricing system. And to lay the demise of good, preventative primary care at the feet of Medicare's centrally planned system, replete with formulas, data, and abstracted views of medicine.
His editorial is engaging for its combination of a personal anecdote which captures so well the innocent hopes even doctors initially held for the centrally-operated federal government medical juggernaut which would ultimately warp, then destroy the simpler, less-expensive world of medical care that I knew in my youth.
Hannon's father-in-law was a doctor. The type of doctor whom Hannon describes as 'a Marcus Welby, M.D.' type who made house calls and treated the poor sick either for free, or for payment in kind. He writes,
"I remember my father-in-law, a real-life Dr. Welby, telling me the exciting news that the federal government was going to start paying him to see seniors- patients who before he had seen for the proverbial chicken (or nothing at all). That fabulous deal was Medicare."
Right at this point, I thought about prior posts I've written on this or my other blog concerning how Medicare was a rather stupidly-designed knock-off, for medicine, of the 1930s Social Security program. They both share direct federal government intrusion into otherwise-private behaviors, and a 'common pot' approach to social services provision. That is, social security has a single general fund out of which payments are made, without any limits on individual payments or an ability to assign individual ownership of assets.
In the case of Medicare, just from Hannon's example, it's easy to see how wrong things went from the very start. Rather than have government, as a third party, pay the doctor, why didn't Washington's political hacks simply means-test Americans for vouchers to be used either to buy health insurance or to fund a health savings account, out of which to pay for medical care?
Hannon continues by describing how Medicare's costs ballooned so exorbitantly that, in 1966, Congress estimated the program's 1990 cost would be $12B, which was laughably under the actual 1990 cost of $107B!
Then came cost controls. But Hannon provides details that simply defy reason and logic,
"To fix the cost problem, Medicare in 1992 began using the "resource based relative value system" (RBRVS), a way of evaluating doctors based on factors such as education, effort and specialized training. But the system didn't consider factors such as outcomes, quality of service, severity or demand.
Today most insurance companies use the Medicare RBRVS because it is perceived as objective. As a result of RBRVS, specialists- especially those who perform a lot of procedures- do extremely well. Primary-care doctors do not."
It makes you want to cry, doesn't it? Most sensible people wouldn't design such a stupid system. And they'd certainly include outcomes and relative demand or incidence of condition and disease when creating algorithms to price medical care.
Hannon goes on to trace the decline of the GP, or, as they are now called, primary-care doctor, under this pricing system. And to lay the demise of good, preventative primary care at the feet of Medicare's centrally planned system, replete with formulas, data, and abstracted views of medicine.
His editorial is engaging for its combination of a personal anecdote which captures so well the innocent hopes even doctors initially held for the centrally-operated federal government medical juggernaut which would ultimately warp, then destroy the simpler, less-expensive world of medical care that I knew in my youth.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Frisco Nan Aims To Be Next House Minority Leader
You cannot make this story up. After having led House Democrats to a 60+ seat loss last Tuesday, California's Nancy Pelosi is demanding to be returned to the leadership of her party's House members.
Of course, most sensible people would have exited the scene, the better to facilitate independent voters forgetting why they swept so many Democrats out of the House last week.
It must be near the height of arrogance for Frisco Nan to insist on staying at the helm for House Democrats, albeit now in the minority. Not to mention stupidity on the part of the remaining Democratic House members who don't think it matters that Nan's antics led them to defeat. Can you get more clueless than that? I don't think so.
Given that the GOP is similarly mistaken in keeping Boehner in their leadership team, they are truly lucky that Nan is eager to remain in the public eye for the next two years. Otherwise, voters might forget why they chose to give control over to the Republicans for a couple of years.
Of course, most sensible people would have exited the scene, the better to facilitate independent voters forgetting why they swept so many Democrats out of the House last week.
It must be near the height of arrogance for Frisco Nan to insist on staying at the helm for House Democrats, albeit now in the minority. Not to mention stupidity on the part of the remaining Democratic House members who don't think it matters that Nan's antics led them to defeat. Can you get more clueless than that? I don't think so.
Given that the GOP is similarly mistaken in keeping Boehner in their leadership team, they are truly lucky that Nan is eager to remain in the public eye for the next two years. Otherwise, voters might forget why they chose to give control over to the Republicans for a couple of years.
Friday, November 5, 2010
John Boehner's Post-Election Interview with Fox News' Bret Baier
Last night, Fox News' Special Report aired this interview of prospective Republican House Speaker John Boehner with Bret Baier. This link may break over time, and the clip was not on YouTube, nor downloadable, so the Fox News link is the best I can do for now.
I haven't been one of Boehner's biggest fans, and in prior posts, have argued that he needs to renounce his intention to become Speaker next January. To me, Boehner's having been part of the GOP leadership that lost control of the House in 2006 is reason enough for him to step aside and let new blood lead the House, if for no other reason than to demonstrate to the independent voters who gave Republicans their new House majority in the next Congress' House, that he and the GOP 'get it.'
That said, this interview has substantially improved Boehner's standing in my view, although it still hasn't changed my opinion about his becoming Speaker.
I was heartened by Boehner renouncing earmarks and coolly, repeatedly saying that the Republicans 'will not raise taxes on the American people.'
Very clear, succinct and positive. I think it's no small thing that Boehner refused the bait of discussing 'extending the Bush tax cuts,' which makes it sound like that is change. Instead, he echoed Glenn Beck's view that we need to not raise taxes- period. That, of course, means making the nearly decade-old tax rates permanent.
Boehner signaled unwavering agreement with voters that Obamacare must be repealed, stopped or defunded. This is a clear signal to Wonderboy that the latter's attempt to characterize any effort to repeal the healthcare bill is going 'backwards' won't fly in the House.
Boehner also rather positively implied some type of explicit approach the GOP might employ to demonstrate it is listening to voters outside the Beltway.
You don't get such a sense of personality cult with the Ohio Representative as with Frisco Nan or Gingrich. Of course, the context is much different. How odd, that Boehner's GOP House majority won't be such an oasis after a long dry spell of control of the House, but, at the same time, is a larger wave of incoming GOP freshmen than in 1994.
Overall, I think Boehner gave a really terrific interview.
I haven't been one of Boehner's biggest fans, and in prior posts, have argued that he needs to renounce his intention to become Speaker next January. To me, Boehner's having been part of the GOP leadership that lost control of the House in 2006 is reason enough for him to step aside and let new blood lead the House, if for no other reason than to demonstrate to the independent voters who gave Republicans their new House majority in the next Congress' House, that he and the GOP 'get it.'
That said, this interview has substantially improved Boehner's standing in my view, although it still hasn't changed my opinion about his becoming Speaker.
I was heartened by Boehner renouncing earmarks and coolly, repeatedly saying that the Republicans 'will not raise taxes on the American people.'
Very clear, succinct and positive. I think it's no small thing that Boehner refused the bait of discussing 'extending the Bush tax cuts,' which makes it sound like that is change. Instead, he echoed Glenn Beck's view that we need to not raise taxes- period. That, of course, means making the nearly decade-old tax rates permanent.
Boehner signaled unwavering agreement with voters that Obamacare must be repealed, stopped or defunded. This is a clear signal to Wonderboy that the latter's attempt to characterize any effort to repeal the healthcare bill is going 'backwards' won't fly in the House.
Boehner also rather positively implied some type of explicit approach the GOP might employ to demonstrate it is listening to voters outside the Beltway.
You don't get such a sense of personality cult with the Ohio Representative as with Frisco Nan or Gingrich. Of course, the context is much different. How odd, that Boehner's GOP House majority won't be such an oasis after a long dry spell of control of the House, but, at the same time, is a larger wave of incoming GOP freshmen than in 1994.
Overall, I think Boehner gave a really terrific interview.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Wonderboy's Post-Election Excuses
I was working on some posts while listening yesterday afternoon to Wonderboy's post "thumping" 1PM address and press conference. Only I guess he called it a "shellacking." It's one of the very few times I could tolerate his voice for so long.
It was quite a treat, I must admit, to see and hear him devoid of his usual arrogance.
His opening remark was amazing. He first expressed regret that 'so many fine public servants' would be leaving Congress or other political jobs. He defended the defeated Democratic Congressional and Senatorial members as having made difficult, career-ending votes that had to be made.
I guess Wonderboy missed the part of the Tea Party movement which is incensed with career politicians spending us into oblivion.
After trying to put his usual 'miscommunication' spin on the House blowout, Wonderboy then inexplicably began to try to describe his economic plans by way of electric cars and green technology. Try as they might, reporters could not get the First Rookie to acknowledge that voters across the country had repudiated his program and so-called leadership.
In his remarks and responses to questions, he continued to show his tin ear, professing the now tired explanations that: a) nothing was his fault, he inherited the biggest mess in American history besides FDR; b) things were much better, but people don't realize it, and are ungrateful, and the fact that voters don't yet realize how well he's fixed things is his fault, and; c) there's no need to change direction, just communicate better.
Truly amazing how dense and arrogant this guy is, isn't it? His party suffers the worst loss of House seats in more than 50 years, loses at least 6 Senate seats, including his former one, as 2 races remain to be determined, plus a solid Democratic seat earlier this year (Scott Brown in Massachusetts), and he thinks it's all just a slight misunderstanding due to his miscommunication of how well life in America has become under his socialist regime.
It was quite a treat, I must admit, to see and hear him devoid of his usual arrogance.
His opening remark was amazing. He first expressed regret that 'so many fine public servants' would be leaving Congress or other political jobs. He defended the defeated Democratic Congressional and Senatorial members as having made difficult, career-ending votes that had to be made.
I guess Wonderboy missed the part of the Tea Party movement which is incensed with career politicians spending us into oblivion.
After trying to put his usual 'miscommunication' spin on the House blowout, Wonderboy then inexplicably began to try to describe his economic plans by way of electric cars and green technology. Try as they might, reporters could not get the First Rookie to acknowledge that voters across the country had repudiated his program and so-called leadership.
In his remarks and responses to questions, he continued to show his tin ear, professing the now tired explanations that: a) nothing was his fault, he inherited the biggest mess in American history besides FDR; b) things were much better, but people don't realize it, and are ungrateful, and the fact that voters don't yet realize how well he's fixed things is his fault, and; c) there's no need to change direction, just communicate better.
Truly amazing how dense and arrogant this guy is, isn't it? His party suffers the worst loss of House seats in more than 50 years, loses at least 6 Senate seats, including his former one, as 2 races remain to be determined, plus a solid Democratic seat earlier this year (Scott Brown in Massachusetts), and he thinks it's all just a slight misunderstanding due to his miscommunication of how well life in America has become under his socialist regime.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
The Election's Aftermath
By now, everyone knows that the Republicans, thanks to Tea Party activism and general voter outrage at the administration's and Congressional Democrats' socialist legislation and excessive spending of the past two years, retook control of the House with a net gain of some 66 seats. By Fox News' count, the largest change of seats in the House since 1946. The Senate saw GOP gains of 6 seats.
Not accidentally, several media pundits weighed in yesterday with advice on how Wonderboy can rebound from the anticipated, now real "thumping," to use George W. Bush's term, the president and his party took at all governmental levels.
The Wall Street Journal's Gerald Seib wrote extensively on how Reagan came back from the mid-term losses of 1982. CNBC held a panel in which they once again (over)used the analogy of Wonderboy as national CEO and Congress as his 'board of directors.' Various organizational behavior mavens, including Yale's Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, chimed in with their views. As you might expect, the two most frequently-mentioned 'solutions' for the current administration is to triangulate/compromise with the newly-empowered House Republicans, and to focus on economic and job growth.
Seib at least noted that Reagan's Republican's didn't lose the House, but merely seats in the House. And only about 25, at that.
There's a problem though. Whether you believe our First Rookie is capable of compromise- and it seems like he's not- his basic values run to socialism, not capitalism.
So if he can't compromise on economic issues, and his are, as we have seen, wrong-headed and prone to fail, he can't really do what the various observers recommend.
Everybody seems to have missed this point. Reagan's approach worked because, well, as Seib at least acknowledged, it led to economic and job growth unrivaled in decades. Now, we have the reverse, and no prospect in sight for anything remotely Reaganomic. Even the decade-old Bush tax cuts are to become Obama tax increases in two months.
My point is, I don't think this president can or will compromise his few, core, socialistic values to re-ignite robust US economic growth.
That said, all the pundits mouth the 'compromise' platitude. Even Frank Luntz' focus group on Fox News last night nearly universally called for Congress to simply 'get the job done,' and 'listen to us.'
How do you get compromise when one party has dumb, unworkable ideas, and the other wants to change that?
Boehner's speech last night at least noted one important fact come January. Something Gingrich found out the hard way as Speaker.
The president has to lead, because his veto of divided-chamber legislation makes the House unable to enforce its majority's will. It's true that the new GOP House majority can de-fund and selectively hamper various programs, perhaps even including Obamacare. But it can't lead the country.
Where this will all shake out is anybody's guess. But I suspect that even if Boehner isn't sufficiently astute to avoid Gingrich's mistakes, having Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and other GOP House "young guns" on his team will go a long way to prevent a rerun of the 1990s government shutdown while Gingrich faced off against Clinton.
The new House GOP leadership is probably better positioned and informed to effectively deal with the split-power government which will sit in Washington come late January.
Not accidentally, several media pundits weighed in yesterday with advice on how Wonderboy can rebound from the anticipated, now real "thumping," to use George W. Bush's term, the president and his party took at all governmental levels.
The Wall Street Journal's Gerald Seib wrote extensively on how Reagan came back from the mid-term losses of 1982. CNBC held a panel in which they once again (over)used the analogy of Wonderboy as national CEO and Congress as his 'board of directors.' Various organizational behavior mavens, including Yale's Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, chimed in with their views. As you might expect, the two most frequently-mentioned 'solutions' for the current administration is to triangulate/compromise with the newly-empowered House Republicans, and to focus on economic and job growth.
Seib at least noted that Reagan's Republican's didn't lose the House, but merely seats in the House. And only about 25, at that.
There's a problem though. Whether you believe our First Rookie is capable of compromise- and it seems like he's not- his basic values run to socialism, not capitalism.
So if he can't compromise on economic issues, and his are, as we have seen, wrong-headed and prone to fail, he can't really do what the various observers recommend.
Everybody seems to have missed this point. Reagan's approach worked because, well, as Seib at least acknowledged, it led to economic and job growth unrivaled in decades. Now, we have the reverse, and no prospect in sight for anything remotely Reaganomic. Even the decade-old Bush tax cuts are to become Obama tax increases in two months.
My point is, I don't think this president can or will compromise his few, core, socialistic values to re-ignite robust US economic growth.
That said, all the pundits mouth the 'compromise' platitude. Even Frank Luntz' focus group on Fox News last night nearly universally called for Congress to simply 'get the job done,' and 'listen to us.'
How do you get compromise when one party has dumb, unworkable ideas, and the other wants to change that?
Boehner's speech last night at least noted one important fact come January. Something Gingrich found out the hard way as Speaker.
The president has to lead, because his veto of divided-chamber legislation makes the House unable to enforce its majority's will. It's true that the new GOP House majority can de-fund and selectively hamper various programs, perhaps even including Obamacare. But it can't lead the country.
Where this will all shake out is anybody's guess. But I suspect that even if Boehner isn't sufficiently astute to avoid Gingrich's mistakes, having Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and other GOP House "young guns" on his team will go a long way to prevent a rerun of the 1990s government shutdown while Gingrich faced off against Clinton.
The new House GOP leadership is probably better positioned and informed to effectively deal with the split-power government which will sit in Washington come late January.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
