You'd think that Massachusetts' travails with RomneyCare would cause any other state to think twice before attempting to move to a more government-run health care sector.
So it was surprising to read in an edition of the Wall Street Journal last week that Vermont
"is moving one step closer to a goal of its Democratic governor: a state-run health plan that would insure most of its 625,000 residents."
Well, first, it is Vermont. The only state, I believe, to send an avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders, to the US Senate.
But somehow, single-payer health care in the land of Ethan Alan's Green Mountain Boys seems, well, unpatriotic. And at odds with the idea of rugged individuals out in the hills for which the state is named.
Alas, that was then. Now it's government medical care for all.
The Journal article provides anecdotes describing various parties' reactions to the governor's plan.
"Darcie Johnston, founder of Vermonters for Health Care Freedom...says a single payer-style system would usher in the largest tax increase in the state's history. "It hasn't worked in multiple countries where it's been tried," she said."
"In liberal-leaning Vermont, even Republicans in the state legislature are open to the idea of emulating a single-payer system, though they quibble with how it is being set up."
"Instead of paying premiums, employers and workers likely would subsidize the plan through taxes. Gov. Shumlin says the administrative simplification of having one payer would save the state $500 million a year."
According to the Journal, about 7%, or slightly less than 44,000 of Vermont's residents currently lack health care. Apparently just giving them tax credits or vouchers with which to buy health insurance is a non-starter for Vermont's state legislators and governor.
Better, instead, to emulate Massachusetts, drive medical care providers out of the state with lower reimbursements and bureaucratic oversight and care allocation, while experiencing soaring state spending on the experiment.
What's that old line about insanity- trying the same thing over and over, while expecting different results?
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Peggy Noonan Goes Socialist
I managed to make it through Peggy Noonan's weekend editorial in the Wall Street Journal. Maybe it was due to the picture of a thoughtful Paul Ryan, chin on hand, that drove me forward.
The editorial was nothing particularly new or special. It was, after all, Peggy Noonan, herself now long in the tooth, with very little, if anything worthwhile to express anymore.
Instead, Noonan plumped for socialism with this passage about older Americans and health care,
"Rep. Paul Ryan was at the summit, soldiering on. His main problem on Medicare is that people fear the complexities and demands of a new delivery system.
People who draw up legislation, people capable of mastering the facts of the huge and complicated federal budget, often think other people are just like them....But normal people don't wear green eyeshades...But normal people are more likely to sit slouched at the kitchen table with their head in their hands. "Oh no, another big decision, another headache, 50 calls to an insurance company, another go-round with the passive-aggressive phone answerer who, even though she's never met me, calls me Freddy as she puts me on hold.
Here's the great thing about Medicare: You turn 65 and it's there. They give you a card and the nurse takes it."
In the next paragraph, Noonan contradicts herself on that salient last point, noting that, even now, due to low reimbursement rates, some doctors refuse to take "the card."
It's actually far worse than that. I have an acquaintance who had to help an aged relative with Medicare-covered treatment for an ailment. The amount of red tape, paperwork and time spent arguing with various Medicare officials was not to be believed. The relative was sent bills for erroneous out-of-pocket expenses running to tens of thousands of dollars. Days were spent, often in increments of 3-4 hours, either speaking or on hold with government bureaucrats at various offices throughout the region and Washington.
But Noonan's larger mistake is to portray the insulation of Americans from making their own decisions on how to spend their own money on health insurance. If people can buy homes, homeowners and car insurance, surely they are capable of and ought to take an interest in their health insurance, as well.
That's why allowing market forces to compete by providing differing price points, service and quality levels of health insurance is a good thing. Instead of one take-it-or-leave-it government-run, unresponsive health insurance system, multiple private insurers will compete for customers in an open market where bad performance will cost them customers.
It's a sad day when one of Ronald Reagan's speechwriters plumps for government health care. Her former boss was the modern paragon of individual freedom and self-determination.
Now Noonan is arguing for seniors to just be given a "card" and have others make their decisions about their money for them.
The editorial was nothing particularly new or special. It was, after all, Peggy Noonan, herself now long in the tooth, with very little, if anything worthwhile to express anymore.
Instead, Noonan plumped for socialism with this passage about older Americans and health care,
"Rep. Paul Ryan was at the summit, soldiering on. His main problem on Medicare is that people fear the complexities and demands of a new delivery system.
People who draw up legislation, people capable of mastering the facts of the huge and complicated federal budget, often think other people are just like them....But normal people don't wear green eyeshades...But normal people are more likely to sit slouched at the kitchen table with their head in their hands. "Oh no, another big decision, another headache, 50 calls to an insurance company, another go-round with the passive-aggressive phone answerer who, even though she's never met me, calls me Freddy as she puts me on hold.
Here's the great thing about Medicare: You turn 65 and it's there. They give you a card and the nurse takes it."
In the next paragraph, Noonan contradicts herself on that salient last point, noting that, even now, due to low reimbursement rates, some doctors refuse to take "the card."
It's actually far worse than that. I have an acquaintance who had to help an aged relative with Medicare-covered treatment for an ailment. The amount of red tape, paperwork and time spent arguing with various Medicare officials was not to be believed. The relative was sent bills for erroneous out-of-pocket expenses running to tens of thousands of dollars. Days were spent, often in increments of 3-4 hours, either speaking or on hold with government bureaucrats at various offices throughout the region and Washington.
But Noonan's larger mistake is to portray the insulation of Americans from making their own decisions on how to spend their own money on health insurance. If people can buy homes, homeowners and car insurance, surely they are capable of and ought to take an interest in their health insurance, as well.
That's why allowing market forces to compete by providing differing price points, service and quality levels of health insurance is a good thing. Instead of one take-it-or-leave-it government-run, unresponsive health insurance system, multiple private insurers will compete for customers in an open market where bad performance will cost them customers.
It's a sad day when one of Ronald Reagan's speechwriters plumps for government health care. Her former boss was the modern paragon of individual freedom and self-determination.
Now Noonan is arguing for seniors to just be given a "card" and have others make their decisions about their money for them.
Friday, May 27, 2011
The Verdict On the NY-26 Congressional Race
Earlier this month, I wrote a post discussing the NY-26 District Congressional special election.
Kim Strassel had done a great job reporting on the details of the coming election, including a spoiler Democrat-turned-faux-Tea-Party conservative, a timid Republican and a vicious attack-dog Democrat.
Well, the Democrat won with 47% of the vote. The spoiler, Davis, got 9%, while the Republican received 43% of the vote. Hardly a wholesale rejection of Paul Ryan's Medicare ideas, is it?
While Strassel's point, which I reiterated, was that firing-line GOP House candidates have to be equipped to argue Ryan's points and plan, it seems to me that there's another point to be made here.
Remember how another NY special election within the last two years went Democratic due to a hissy fit by local conservatives over the choice of the Republican candidate?
I think Republicans had better decide whether they embrace Tea Party sensibilities of spending cuts, lower taxes and serious entitlement reform, or not. Because if they do, then some old-line liberal GOP candidates are history.
New York is a good example of this sort of choice, because, as a Northeastern state, it tends to elect moderate-to-liberal Republicans. So Tea Party values really give party regulars angst.
Well, things happen for a reason, and what should happen, usually does happen. If a lot of Congressional districts with moderate Republican party hacks continue to ignore genuine Tea Party conservatives, then the House GOP majority might either shrink, or vanish completely again.
Beyond making sure that each GOP House candidate is prepared to explain, defend, and vigorously sell the Ryan agenda, the various local GOP party pols have to decide which side of history they are on.
If too many continue to choose the supposedly-safe middle ground, they'll be swept out. Maybe a few more years of Congressional Democratic control is necessary to convince Americans that entitlement reform is no longer a choice- it's a necessity.
If a lot more GOP party operatives don't get religion on Tea Party values soon, that's what they are going to be enduring come 2012.
Kim Strassel had done a great job reporting on the details of the coming election, including a spoiler Democrat-turned-faux-Tea-Party conservative, a timid Republican and a vicious attack-dog Democrat.
Well, the Democrat won with 47% of the vote. The spoiler, Davis, got 9%, while the Republican received 43% of the vote. Hardly a wholesale rejection of Paul Ryan's Medicare ideas, is it?
While Strassel's point, which I reiterated, was that firing-line GOP House candidates have to be equipped to argue Ryan's points and plan, it seems to me that there's another point to be made here.
Remember how another NY special election within the last two years went Democratic due to a hissy fit by local conservatives over the choice of the Republican candidate?
I think Republicans had better decide whether they embrace Tea Party sensibilities of spending cuts, lower taxes and serious entitlement reform, or not. Because if they do, then some old-line liberal GOP candidates are history.
New York is a good example of this sort of choice, because, as a Northeastern state, it tends to elect moderate-to-liberal Republicans. So Tea Party values really give party regulars angst.
Well, things happen for a reason, and what should happen, usually does happen. If a lot of Congressional districts with moderate Republican party hacks continue to ignore genuine Tea Party conservatives, then the House GOP majority might either shrink, or vanish completely again.
Beyond making sure that each GOP House candidate is prepared to explain, defend, and vigorously sell the Ryan agenda, the various local GOP party pols have to decide which side of history they are on.
If too many continue to choose the supposedly-safe middle ground, they'll be swept out. Maybe a few more years of Congressional Democratic control is necessary to convince Americans that entitlement reform is no longer a choice- it's a necessity.
If a lot more GOP party operatives don't get religion on Tea Party values soon, that's what they are going to be enduring come 2012.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
New Abuses of the Presidency
Several weeks ago, in her Wall Street Journal column Potomac Watch, Kim Strassel broke yet another important story regarding federal politics.
In her piece entitled Obama's 'Gangster Politics,' Strassel disclosed Wonderboy's expected executive order to require companies applying for government contracts "to list their political donations as a condition to bidding for government contracts."
No such requirements are in sight for unions whose members work on such contracts.
Senate Minority Leader McConnell actually called it "almost gangster politics."
It surely is that. And very transparent.
It's such a blatant move to inhibit businesses from donating to Republicans that even liberal Republican Maine Senator Susan Collins is incensed. Imagine that!
Seriously, the two-year history of campaign contributions is clearly meant, not to clean up political finance, as Wonderboy's order alleges, but only to chill sources of GOP funding.
And, of course, if some companies choose not to bid on federal contracts in order to protect their campaign contribution records, then taxpayers will probably pay more for projects, thanks to less competition.
Just what is good about this attempt to selectively intimidate business, but not unions or non-profits, into either being penalized for contributing to non-Democratic campaign funds by being forbidden or not to bid on, or denied federal work, or not making those contributions in the first place?
In her piece entitled Obama's 'Gangster Politics,' Strassel disclosed Wonderboy's expected executive order to require companies applying for government contracts "to list their political donations as a condition to bidding for government contracts."
No such requirements are in sight for unions whose members work on such contracts.
Senate Minority Leader McConnell actually called it "almost gangster politics."
It surely is that. And very transparent.
It's such a blatant move to inhibit businesses from donating to Republicans that even liberal Republican Maine Senator Susan Collins is incensed. Imagine that!
Seriously, the two-year history of campaign contributions is clearly meant, not to clean up political finance, as Wonderboy's order alleges, but only to chill sources of GOP funding.
And, of course, if some companies choose not to bid on federal contracts in order to protect their campaign contribution records, then taxpayers will probably pay more for projects, thanks to less competition.
Just what is good about this attempt to selectively intimidate business, but not unions or non-profits, into either being penalized for contributing to non-Democratic campaign funds by being forbidden or not to bid on, or denied federal work, or not making those contributions in the first place?
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Ken Duberstein On CNBC
I caught part of former Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein's appearance on CNBC yesterday morning. Suffice to say, I was shocked.
Am I one of the last to learn that this alleged conservative stalwart had actually supported Wonderboy in 2008? It was worse as I listened to his reasoning and lack of remorse.
According to Duberstein, he backed the First Rookie because he would be a transformational president. Whatever that meant. And while admitting to a disappointing first 2 1/2 years, Duberstein was unrepentant.
When asked if he still supported/will support the current president in 2012, he delivered a soaring punt, claiming that with 17 months to go until the election, he can't declare for anyone right now.
Does anyone who claims to be conservative now care what Duberstein thinks? Not me.
It got worse when he elaborated on having visited the White House one or more times during the lame duck session to advise on the tax rate extension/stimulus compromise. Asked about the current trade legislation standoff, Duberstein blithely spun out some story about compromise, refusing to judge whether the trade-affected job retraining rider was worthwhile or not.
That statement alone told me all I needed to know about Duberstein now- and probably back in Reagan's day, as well. And perhaps why Reagan settled for so much less than he should have back in the day.
Duberstein pointedly ignored evidence that the so-called retraining package of several billion dollars is just a union sop that doesn't actually even require evidence of foreign-trade pact injury to pay individuals for alleged harm. Instead, he simply referred to the compromise mechanics, saying that 'that's how things get done.'
Additionally, Duberstein had earlier confided that the chief of staff gives his own opinion, and does not simply stand by, mute, awaiting orders.
Thus, you could see how Duberstein probably functioned with Reagan- pushing for compromise, dumping conservative positions in favor of expedient capitulations. Given what we now know about Reagan's last years in office and the probable early onset of Alzheimer's, Duberstein's advise eroded any possibility Reagan had of cementing the best of his conservative policies while in office.
As for Duberstein, his approach and lack of fidelity to actual conservative ideology seem to make him kindred to James Baker. No wonder Reagan was so much less effective than many of us hoped at the time. His own team lacked his conviction.
Especially, judging from his remarks yesterday, Duberstein.
Am I one of the last to learn that this alleged conservative stalwart had actually supported Wonderboy in 2008? It was worse as I listened to his reasoning and lack of remorse.
According to Duberstein, he backed the First Rookie because he would be a transformational president. Whatever that meant. And while admitting to a disappointing first 2 1/2 years, Duberstein was unrepentant.
When asked if he still supported/will support the current president in 2012, he delivered a soaring punt, claiming that with 17 months to go until the election, he can't declare for anyone right now.
Does anyone who claims to be conservative now care what Duberstein thinks? Not me.
It got worse when he elaborated on having visited the White House one or more times during the lame duck session to advise on the tax rate extension/stimulus compromise. Asked about the current trade legislation standoff, Duberstein blithely spun out some story about compromise, refusing to judge whether the trade-affected job retraining rider was worthwhile or not.
That statement alone told me all I needed to know about Duberstein now- and probably back in Reagan's day, as well. And perhaps why Reagan settled for so much less than he should have back in the day.
Duberstein pointedly ignored evidence that the so-called retraining package of several billion dollars is just a union sop that doesn't actually even require evidence of foreign-trade pact injury to pay individuals for alleged harm. Instead, he simply referred to the compromise mechanics, saying that 'that's how things get done.'
Additionally, Duberstein had earlier confided that the chief of staff gives his own opinion, and does not simply stand by, mute, awaiting orders.
Thus, you could see how Duberstein probably functioned with Reagan- pushing for compromise, dumping conservative positions in favor of expedient capitulations. Given what we now know about Reagan's last years in office and the probable early onset of Alzheimer's, Duberstein's advise eroded any possibility Reagan had of cementing the best of his conservative policies while in office.
As for Duberstein, his approach and lack of fidelity to actual conservative ideology seem to make him kindred to James Baker. No wonder Reagan was so much less effective than many of us hoped at the time. His own team lacked his conviction.
Especially, judging from his remarks yesterday, Duberstein.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty & The GOP 2012 Presidential Nomination
When I wrote this post roughly two weeks ago, I was concerned that I'd left someone out, but couldn't see, from the scrambled early field, who that would be.
It was former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. I now realize that he had declared his exploratory committee and even participated in the South Carolina debate. But I totally overlooked him.
Maybe it's my bad memory, perhaps Pawlenty's forgetability, or both.
In either case, having realized my mistake, and with Mitch Daniels' decision to skip the 2012 presidential race, my initial assessments were these:
Electable: Gingrich, Daniels
Unelectable: Ron Paul, Hunstman, Johnson, Cain, Bachman, Santorum, Palin, Romney
My personal preference? Probably Newt Gingrich, followed by Mitch Daniels. Herman Cain, by virtue of his candor and business experience, would be third.
My updated assessment is:
Electable: Pawlenty
Unelectable: Ron Paul, Johnson, Bachman, Santorum, Palin, Romney, Gingrich
Unsure: Hunstman, Cain
Ranked Preference: Pawlenty, Cain, Hunstman, Paul
I confess to being very disappointed, but not really surprised that Mitch Daniels declined to run. With his extensive federal and gubernatorial track record, it surely wasn't his concern over his abilities or prospects. Except for, frankly, that odd marital situation. And his wife's apparent total refusal to be involved in his political campaigns at all.
That kind of weirdness just doesn't play well on the campaign trail. Even the current First Lady was campaigning for Wonderboy, until her infamous gaffes about never being proud of being American until her husband ran for the Oval Office.
With Daniels out, I really don't see a mainstream GOP candidate with sufficient experience and credentials to appeal to independents except Pawlenty. Dick Armey seems to agree.
My own decades-old informal presidential prediction model involves American voters' observed preference for governors. When non-incumbents meet, a governor will beat a nominee without gubernatorial experience. The presidency has correctly come to be viewed as the executive job that it is, thus discriminating against Senators and Representatives. Thus I believe Santorum, Bachman and Paul are virtually unelectable.
Against an incumbent Democrat, I think Republicans need to give it their very best shot. Despite his horrible economic and foreign policy records, Wonderboy has the advantage of incumbency, fluency on the stump, and the inevitable appeal to racism.
It's heartbreaking to think that, like 1996, Republicans have a golden opportunity and a dearth of spellbinding candidates with the right credentials. But that's what seems to be developing.
In that environment, I suspect Pawlenty offers the GOP its best hope for recapturing the White House.
It was former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. I now realize that he had declared his exploratory committee and even participated in the South Carolina debate. But I totally overlooked him.
Maybe it's my bad memory, perhaps Pawlenty's forgetability, or both.
In either case, having realized my mistake, and with Mitch Daniels' decision to skip the 2012 presidential race, my initial assessments were these:
Electable: Gingrich, Daniels
Unelectable: Ron Paul, Hunstman, Johnson, Cain, Bachman, Santorum, Palin, Romney
My personal preference? Probably Newt Gingrich, followed by Mitch Daniels. Herman Cain, by virtue of his candor and business experience, would be third.
My updated assessment is:
Electable: Pawlenty
Unelectable: Ron Paul, Johnson, Bachman, Santorum, Palin, Romney, Gingrich
Unsure: Hunstman, Cain
Ranked Preference: Pawlenty, Cain, Hunstman, Paul
I confess to being very disappointed, but not really surprised that Mitch Daniels declined to run. With his extensive federal and gubernatorial track record, it surely wasn't his concern over his abilities or prospects. Except for, frankly, that odd marital situation. And his wife's apparent total refusal to be involved in his political campaigns at all.
That kind of weirdness just doesn't play well on the campaign trail. Even the current First Lady was campaigning for Wonderboy, until her infamous gaffes about never being proud of being American until her husband ran for the Oval Office.
With Daniels out, I really don't see a mainstream GOP candidate with sufficient experience and credentials to appeal to independents except Pawlenty. Dick Armey seems to agree.
My own decades-old informal presidential prediction model involves American voters' observed preference for governors. When non-incumbents meet, a governor will beat a nominee without gubernatorial experience. The presidency has correctly come to be viewed as the executive job that it is, thus discriminating against Senators and Representatives. Thus I believe Santorum, Bachman and Paul are virtually unelectable.
Against an incumbent Democrat, I think Republicans need to give it their very best shot. Despite his horrible economic and foreign policy records, Wonderboy has the advantage of incumbency, fluency on the stump, and the inevitable appeal to racism.
It's heartbreaking to think that, like 1996, Republicans have a golden opportunity and a dearth of spellbinding candidates with the right credentials. But that's what seems to be developing.
In that environment, I suspect Pawlenty offers the GOP its best hope for recapturing the White House.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Dick Armey On Gingrich's Gaffe
I was pleasantly surprised to read and hear Dick Armey's response to his old House leadership colleague Newt Gingrich's enormous campaign gaffe regarding Medicare.
Both in a Wall Street Journal editorial last week, then, again, this morning on CNBC, the former House Majority Leader displayed high contrast with his old Speaker colleague by calling for GOP presidential candidates who are not "timid" on Medicare and general entitlement reforms.
Rather than blast Newt by name, or get into any personal confrontations, Armey simply reminded his readers and viewers of the Tea Party's and independents' desires for fiscal rectitude and sensible entitlement reforms.
For Armey, this means embracing significant reforms, and eschewing hot-button terms like radical or social engineering.
When I consider my own thoughts on electoral dynamics, I find myself in agreement with Dick Armey in that Republicans need to explicitly consider which positions will appeal to the large block of independent voters who will effectively choose the next president.
Timidity and acceptance of the current status quo isn't going to do that. Right now, that means, by virtue of his openining campaign remarks on Paul Ryan's ideas, Gingrich doesn't fit that bill.
Armey went further on CNBC to rather pointedly back Tim Pawlenty, thanks to his gubernatorial record, basic positions and weaknesses of the rest of the field, with Mitch Daniels' decision not to run in 2012.
Both in a Wall Street Journal editorial last week, then, again, this morning on CNBC, the former House Majority Leader displayed high contrast with his old Speaker colleague by calling for GOP presidential candidates who are not "timid" on Medicare and general entitlement reforms.
Rather than blast Newt by name, or get into any personal confrontations, Armey simply reminded his readers and viewers of the Tea Party's and independents' desires for fiscal rectitude and sensible entitlement reforms.
For Armey, this means embracing significant reforms, and eschewing hot-button terms like radical or social engineering.
When I consider my own thoughts on electoral dynamics, I find myself in agreement with Dick Armey in that Republicans need to explicitly consider which positions will appeal to the large block of independent voters who will effectively choose the next president.
Timidity and acceptance of the current status quo isn't going to do that. Right now, that means, by virtue of his openining campaign remarks on Paul Ryan's ideas, Gingrich doesn't fit that bill.
Armey went further on CNBC to rather pointedly back Tim Pawlenty, thanks to his gubernatorial record, basic positions and weaknesses of the rest of the field, with Mitch Daniels' decision not to run in 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
