There probably won't be any fireworks to celebrate Michelle Bachmann's departure from Congress. No one really cares, and those who do - people like me - wouldn't spend the money to see her off; there is this budget deficit at all.
So ends the career of one of the tea party's darlings, a woman who reached her political apex when she won the Iowa Straw Poll during the Republican primaries, only to finish sixth in the actual caucus. Among Michelle Bachmann's legislative accomplishments we count...
Bachmann's disappearance from public life will indeed be cause for celebration. Of course she's already lost the limelight to the likes of Ted Cruz who is arguably even worse than she is. Still her departure is significant because it does bode well for the future of America, which will be necessarily precipitated by the reversal of the Republican Party. If Bachmann is afraid that she can't win reelection, perhaps the political winds are shifting favorably.
Of course that doesn't rid us of Ted Cruz or the rest of the tea party nut jobs, but it's a start. And hopefully it will gain some traction. Just this weekend former Senate majority leader and Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole stated - on Fox News of all places! - that the Republican party should hang a "closed for repairs" sign on the door because they are short on positive ideas. Neither he nor Ronald Reagan would feel comfortable in the party today, Dole said.
Anyone who has followed American politics since 2009 knows what Dole is saying is true. As many reasons as there were to dislike President Bush, who would have thought that just five years after he left office, he'd be the model of sanity for a party gone awry. I am fond of saying that the Republican party is both morally and intellectually bankrupt, and clearly Bob Dole agrees. They have failed to put forth any positive ideas in the last few years - short of Paul Ryan who at least tried - and instead have made 37 attempts to repeal Obamacare. The party hopes that they can use Obamacare as a political weapon to repeat their 2010 electoral success. I'd argue that the Democrats have an easy counter-punch: if not Obamacare, then what? Perhaps rather than spending roughly 15% of your time trying to repeal the law, you could offer ideas to strengthen it. So far, no ideas have been put forward. Surprise!
For all the talk of Republicans remaking their image - immigration reform, more openness on social issues, not being the party of the super rich, etc - the party has thus far done little to shed the image of narrow-minded, non-cooperativeness that stigmatizes it. Where are the good ideas Bob Dole asks for? Why, when 90% of Americans supported universal background checks, was that bill undone by Senate Republicans?
The Republican party, much to my chagrin, but to the apparent delight of many of its fiercest adherents, is committing political suicide. As I've said time and time again - in fact I sound like a nag repeating it - I want a better Republican party, not an obsolete one. I want elected officials who believe in a relatively balanced budget, who understand regulation and excessive taxation can often be onerous, who believe in market-driven solutions to certain problems, and who believe firmly in the importance of supportive social fabric. All of these values and ideas are traditionally associated with the Republican party. That I can tell, the only one they are pursuing is a balanced budget and even that goal is coming at the worst possible time, in the throes of a recession and tepid recovery.
Republicans may be able to make election gains in the short-term by proffering fear, but in the long run, they are on the road of the dinosaurs. If I were picking their slogan for the next election it would be "No Country For Old Men." On their current path, twilight nears. I good you bid evening, Republicans. Days go by and your opportunity to show real leadership and real ideas fades slowly. It may take a truly epic self-destruction for the Republican party to rectify itself. But Michelle Bachmann is gone, so maybe I'm wrong.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
What Does and Doesn't Matter
Scandals abound! There are many, some of them are real, others are fictitious, all of them are worth addressing. In the spirit of the good, the bad, and the ugly, which of the crises in government are legitimate, and which are just political?
Let's get the fluff out of the way first, we'll call this the good, because even though the event itself was tragic, the aftermath has been a witch hunt. I'm talking of course about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. This attack was tragic, but in the hearings that have followed it, we have been led to believe there was some kind of cover up that would have saved American lives. Senator Lindsay Graham even said it was a scandal akin to Watergate. Rather, it seems, that it's nothing more than a chance for Darrell Issa to look snarky on national television. Former Defense Secretary Robert gates called the idea that we could have scrambled jets or special forces to react in time to save American lives a "cartoonish impression of military capability." We now know that the "talking points" were redacted and for a few days we thought the deaths were the result of a spontaneous uprising in reaction to a video - not a far fetched belief given that such protests were happening simultaneously next door in Egypt. The correction was quickly made, there wasn't really a lie or a cover-up, but there is an ongoing witch hunt. Republicans want to flay President Obama and undermine Hilary Clinton three and a half years before the next presidential election. This is political theater, and given our collective memory-span, probably ineffective political theater.
If the Benghazi "scandal" is dismissible, the others are not. The bad and the ugly are just that, bad and ugly. First to the bad. The bad scandal is the IRS singling out conservative groups for increased scrutiny when applying for tax-exempt status. There is one thing that needs to be clarified here, the problem with this increased scrutiny is that it was targeted, not that it was applied. Groups that receive this particular type of tax-exempt status are supposed to be involved in social welfare activities. The vast majority of them, whether tilting towards the right or the left, simply are not. These groups get around this by purchasing "issue" advertising, rather than advertising that explicitly endorses a candidate, but this is a farce. These are political groups. The IRS SHOULD be scrutinizing them closely. But they should be scrutinizing the liberal-leaning ones as well. As deplorable as the tea party is, they have every right to be heard, and in fact, it is better that they are heard; the way to exorcise bad ideas is not to censor them but to expose them. The louder the tea party trumpets, the more people they'll scare away. The IRS needs to examine these applications universally, not based on their political stripes.
This segues perfectly in the ugly scandal, the confiscation of the records of AP journalists. This is by far the worst of the three episodes. Despite the fact that our national press is lackluster and often hitched to one or another of our political parties (think Fox and MSNBC), a free press is imperative for the continuation of our democracy. We must allow journalists to do their work without impediments, especially when they are exposing flaws and corruption within government! A free press helps keep government honest, and we all know that our government - regardless of who is running it - struggles with honesty. It is imperative that we protect freedom of the press, and it is imperative we determine what happened here, why, and make sure it doesn't happen again. A state controlled media will lead us all to believe that dear leader once shot an 18 on a round of golf or that the infidels will perish at the gate.
All three of these crises have created a few weeks of turmoil for the president and Democrats, and much of it is well deserved. Times like these highlight more than ever the need for a legitimate opposition party that can hold Democrats accountable while acknowledging which of these things were systematic flaws and which are political coercion. For example, there is a high degree of irony in the very people who slashed the State Department's defense budget condemning the president for attacks on a consulate they are largely responsible for not defending. Conversely, it is troubling that - whether he knew or not (and it is far more troubling if he did) - that the government under Obama is censoring and tracking opponents and the press.
The real problem here is that all politicians have become just that, politicians. Policy has taken a backseat to theatrics. Republicans want to bash the president and Hilary Clinton, and while I hope he was ignorant of the whole ordeal, it is possible that President Obama used the power of his office to curtail opposition and get re-elected. This emphasis on winning rather than bettering our country has led both parties to enmesh themselves in stunts better suited for daytime television than for the serious work of government. That issue is at the root of these and other political scandals, and that is what truly matters most.
Let's get the fluff out of the way first, we'll call this the good, because even though the event itself was tragic, the aftermath has been a witch hunt. I'm talking of course about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. This attack was tragic, but in the hearings that have followed it, we have been led to believe there was some kind of cover up that would have saved American lives. Senator Lindsay Graham even said it was a scandal akin to Watergate. Rather, it seems, that it's nothing more than a chance for Darrell Issa to look snarky on national television. Former Defense Secretary Robert gates called the idea that we could have scrambled jets or special forces to react in time to save American lives a "cartoonish impression of military capability." We now know that the "talking points" were redacted and for a few days we thought the deaths were the result of a spontaneous uprising in reaction to a video - not a far fetched belief given that such protests were happening simultaneously next door in Egypt. The correction was quickly made, there wasn't really a lie or a cover-up, but there is an ongoing witch hunt. Republicans want to flay President Obama and undermine Hilary Clinton three and a half years before the next presidential election. This is political theater, and given our collective memory-span, probably ineffective political theater.
If the Benghazi "scandal" is dismissible, the others are not. The bad and the ugly are just that, bad and ugly. First to the bad. The bad scandal is the IRS singling out conservative groups for increased scrutiny when applying for tax-exempt status. There is one thing that needs to be clarified here, the problem with this increased scrutiny is that it was targeted, not that it was applied. Groups that receive this particular type of tax-exempt status are supposed to be involved in social welfare activities. The vast majority of them, whether tilting towards the right or the left, simply are not. These groups get around this by purchasing "issue" advertising, rather than advertising that explicitly endorses a candidate, but this is a farce. These are political groups. The IRS SHOULD be scrutinizing them closely. But they should be scrutinizing the liberal-leaning ones as well. As deplorable as the tea party is, they have every right to be heard, and in fact, it is better that they are heard; the way to exorcise bad ideas is not to censor them but to expose them. The louder the tea party trumpets, the more people they'll scare away. The IRS needs to examine these applications universally, not based on their political stripes.
This segues perfectly in the ugly scandal, the confiscation of the records of AP journalists. This is by far the worst of the three episodes. Despite the fact that our national press is lackluster and often hitched to one or another of our political parties (think Fox and MSNBC), a free press is imperative for the continuation of our democracy. We must allow journalists to do their work without impediments, especially when they are exposing flaws and corruption within government! A free press helps keep government honest, and we all know that our government - regardless of who is running it - struggles with honesty. It is imperative that we protect freedom of the press, and it is imperative we determine what happened here, why, and make sure it doesn't happen again. A state controlled media will lead us all to believe that dear leader once shot an 18 on a round of golf or that the infidels will perish at the gate.
All three of these crises have created a few weeks of turmoil for the president and Democrats, and much of it is well deserved. Times like these highlight more than ever the need for a legitimate opposition party that can hold Democrats accountable while acknowledging which of these things were systematic flaws and which are political coercion. For example, there is a high degree of irony in the very people who slashed the State Department's defense budget condemning the president for attacks on a consulate they are largely responsible for not defending. Conversely, it is troubling that - whether he knew or not (and it is far more troubling if he did) - that the government under Obama is censoring and tracking opponents and the press.
The real problem here is that all politicians have become just that, politicians. Policy has taken a backseat to theatrics. Republicans want to bash the president and Hilary Clinton, and while I hope he was ignorant of the whole ordeal, it is possible that President Obama used the power of his office to curtail opposition and get re-elected. This emphasis on winning rather than bettering our country has led both parties to enmesh themselves in stunts better suited for daytime television than for the serious work of government. That issue is at the root of these and other political scandals, and that is what truly matters most.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Duh!
Here's not news: economists have projected that unemployment would be a point lower, and growth two points higher were it not for tax hikes and spending cuts. The actual headline of the article is "Economists See Deficit Emphasis as Impeding Recovery." Um...duh.
Perhaps the reason this took four years to make the news is because economists were actually gathering data with which to quantify for us how we've been shooting ourselves in the foot. Perhaps the more cautious ones wanted to make sure that none of the dire predictions prophesized by deficit hawks actually came true. None of them came true. Whatever the reason, economists - whoever they are - are now comfortable saying what everyone with a basic understanding of economics has known for quite a while. Spending cuts like those in the sequester, and tax hikes - particularly of the payroll variety - have stifled economic growth.
If this comes as a surprise to you, you probably haven't been paying attention to the situation recently, like in the last three to five years. Austerity has been a bad idea since long before we tried to/began implementing it, but now we have concrete evidence, not just historical experience to prove to us that this was a bad idea. We also have Europe, still in the doldrums and probably moving in the wrong direction. But it seems as though Europe is waking up to the fact that austerity was the wrong move, have we? Is it too late to undo some of the damage done by the sequester and replace those harmful ones with productive reforms to entitlement spending?
One thing is for sure, America has spent the last four years making the wrong decisions on too many issues. We've hurt our own recovery on multiple occasions, been spineless in our approach to gun control, sat idly by while the situation in the Middle East has moved on without us (and for this we can blame the President whereas for other issues we can blame Congress, particularly its Republican members), and we are now in danger of failing to enact immigration reform.
What is Congress doing, you may ask? Well currently, the House of Representatives is engaged in its 37th, yes that's right, 37th attempt to repeal Obamacare. On top of the fact that this endeavor isn't going to be any more successful this time than it was the first 36, it underscores the fact that Republicans are really fresh out of ideas and so they're counter to the failure of austerity is to keep beating a dead horse, wasting their time and ours on a symbolic motion that is doomed for failure rather than proactively trying to fix things. Even if Republicans were able to repeal Obamacare they have no ideas of their own for fixing healthcare (except Obamacare which was their idea), so we'd be back at square one anyhow. There is a deplorable lack of accountability.
So instead of facing reality, acknowledging that austerity now is a horrible idea, correcting course, and trying to get America up and running again, our elected officials are casting their 37th symbolic vote on a fight they've already lost. No wonder they can't accept the reality that austerity is wrong, they're scarily immune to facts and data, and we're stuck with them at the helm of a ship that is off course.
Perhaps the reason this took four years to make the news is because economists were actually gathering data with which to quantify for us how we've been shooting ourselves in the foot. Perhaps the more cautious ones wanted to make sure that none of the dire predictions prophesized by deficit hawks actually came true. None of them came true. Whatever the reason, economists - whoever they are - are now comfortable saying what everyone with a basic understanding of economics has known for quite a while. Spending cuts like those in the sequester, and tax hikes - particularly of the payroll variety - have stifled economic growth.
If this comes as a surprise to you, you probably haven't been paying attention to the situation recently, like in the last three to five years. Austerity has been a bad idea since long before we tried to/began implementing it, but now we have concrete evidence, not just historical experience to prove to us that this was a bad idea. We also have Europe, still in the doldrums and probably moving in the wrong direction. But it seems as though Europe is waking up to the fact that austerity was the wrong move, have we? Is it too late to undo some of the damage done by the sequester and replace those harmful ones with productive reforms to entitlement spending?
One thing is for sure, America has spent the last four years making the wrong decisions on too many issues. We've hurt our own recovery on multiple occasions, been spineless in our approach to gun control, sat idly by while the situation in the Middle East has moved on without us (and for this we can blame the President whereas for other issues we can blame Congress, particularly its Republican members), and we are now in danger of failing to enact immigration reform.
What is Congress doing, you may ask? Well currently, the House of Representatives is engaged in its 37th, yes that's right, 37th attempt to repeal Obamacare. On top of the fact that this endeavor isn't going to be any more successful this time than it was the first 36, it underscores the fact that Republicans are really fresh out of ideas and so they're counter to the failure of austerity is to keep beating a dead horse, wasting their time and ours on a symbolic motion that is doomed for failure rather than proactively trying to fix things. Even if Republicans were able to repeal Obamacare they have no ideas of their own for fixing healthcare (except Obamacare which was their idea), so we'd be back at square one anyhow. There is a deplorable lack of accountability.
So instead of facing reality, acknowledging that austerity now is a horrible idea, correcting course, and trying to get America up and running again, our elected officials are casting their 37th symbolic vote on a fight they've already lost. No wonder they can't accept the reality that austerity is wrong, they're scarily immune to facts and data, and we're stuck with them at the helm of a ship that is off course.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
What to do with Damascus
Syria is spiraling badly out of control. The situation there has been
a crisis for years now, but in the last few weeks things have gotten
markedly worse. The accusation and presumed use of chemical weapons by
the Syrian government reflects their desperation, and recent strikes by
Israel as well as the increased involvement of Hezbollah in support of
Assad all point to an increasingly combustible situation that could
devolve into a regional war.
So what to do? Our intervention in Libya was very effective even if the aftermath has been ugly - and perhaps getting uglier - but the situation in Syria is far more complex. Informed readers know the complexities of the situation, so rather than detailing them, I will focus on a more important issue: what should we do?
Some might say the answer is nothing. Those people are not John McCain, and while I'm not sure if I'm willing to take it as far as Senator McCain just yet, I think the time has passed when we can stand idly by and watch as more innocent lives are lost, more regional turmoil is created, and anti-American groups solidify their positions thus sowing the seeds for further violence both in the Middle East and potentially here in America. The options in Syria are all fraught with peril. We want to avoid being drawn into another war ourselves, but the humanitarian and national security crises are building and we cannot avoid them. The president's approach thus far has been too cautious and timid. It is long past time to act.
First, America should work with our NATO allies, not Israel, to establish a no fly zone over Syria. Though Israel is next door and has the capacity to be a strong contributor in this effort, an Israeli presence would only help rally support for Assad and jihadist elements such as Hezbollah. A NATO no fly zone would prevent the further use of air power and potential chemical weapons use by the Assad government, and the success of Israeli airstrikes shows that it can be done with no casualties.
Second, we should invest ourselves in diplomatic negotiations with Russia - as we have begun to do - to prevent future aid to Assad. Russia knows they are on the losing side of this fight, so effective diplomacy and a promise to protect Russian interests could be a heavy blow to what is left of Assad's government (if anything is left at all).
Finally, we should work more proactively with the rebel groups on the ground to identify which are willing to form a government we can support and which are likely to be future threats. We should support the democratic groups with lethal and non-lethal aid, and coordinate with them, if possible, on the security of chemical weapons sites and support airstrikes.
None of these ideas are uniquely mine, but when done together, they would allow us to experience in Syria the same kind of success we achieved in Libya. Hopefully, we could learn from our mistakes in the aftermath, and prevent the same kinds of problems that are plaguing that country now. We could be successful without sending US troops.
It is imperative that we do something, because the political and humanitarian situations are out of control and have been for sometime. Without American action, this crisis is likely to grow even more and spiral further out of control. The longer we sit, the worse things will become.
So what to do? Our intervention in Libya was very effective even if the aftermath has been ugly - and perhaps getting uglier - but the situation in Syria is far more complex. Informed readers know the complexities of the situation, so rather than detailing them, I will focus on a more important issue: what should we do?
Some might say the answer is nothing. Those people are not John McCain, and while I'm not sure if I'm willing to take it as far as Senator McCain just yet, I think the time has passed when we can stand idly by and watch as more innocent lives are lost, more regional turmoil is created, and anti-American groups solidify their positions thus sowing the seeds for further violence both in the Middle East and potentially here in America. The options in Syria are all fraught with peril. We want to avoid being drawn into another war ourselves, but the humanitarian and national security crises are building and we cannot avoid them. The president's approach thus far has been too cautious and timid. It is long past time to act.
First, America should work with our NATO allies, not Israel, to establish a no fly zone over Syria. Though Israel is next door and has the capacity to be a strong contributor in this effort, an Israeli presence would only help rally support for Assad and jihadist elements such as Hezbollah. A NATO no fly zone would prevent the further use of air power and potential chemical weapons use by the Assad government, and the success of Israeli airstrikes shows that it can be done with no casualties.
Second, we should invest ourselves in diplomatic negotiations with Russia - as we have begun to do - to prevent future aid to Assad. Russia knows they are on the losing side of this fight, so effective diplomacy and a promise to protect Russian interests could be a heavy blow to what is left of Assad's government (if anything is left at all).
Finally, we should work more proactively with the rebel groups on the ground to identify which are willing to form a government we can support and which are likely to be future threats. We should support the democratic groups with lethal and non-lethal aid, and coordinate with them, if possible, on the security of chemical weapons sites and support airstrikes.
None of these ideas are uniquely mine, but when done together, they would allow us to experience in Syria the same kind of success we achieved in Libya. Hopefully, we could learn from our mistakes in the aftermath, and prevent the same kinds of problems that are plaguing that country now. We could be successful without sending US troops.
It is imperative that we do something, because the political and humanitarian situations are out of control and have been for sometime. Without American action, this crisis is likely to grow even more and spiral further out of control. The longer we sit, the worse things will become.
Monday, May 6, 2013
The Conservative Rebuttal
I don't normally read Ross Douthat's work in the New York Times. Though I celebrate David Brook's conservatism, I usually find Douthat to be a bit dull. Having said that, in his weekend piece, Douthat lays out a very strong conservative rebuttal to Obamacare, and one that his (presumed) party would be wise to study.
Douthat's point revolves around a 2008 study done in Oregon which showed that access to Medicaid did not affect health outcomes, that is, having health insurance may help people afford healthcare, but it didn't actually make them healthier. This is not by itself necessarily surprising. Obviously having healthcare doesn't mean you can avoid ruinous injuries or illnesses.
As Douthat himself points out, saving low-income Americans from illness-induced financial calamity would still be a major policy achievement. But the the purpose of health insurance is indeed twofold; there is a moral obligation to make life better as well as a fiscal imperative to reduce costs.
So where is this going? Douthat traces his argument to the benefits of insurance, if the benefit is mostly financial, then shouldn't health insurance be like auto insurance or home insurance and only cover disasters, not check ups? I think one could make the case that Medicare ought to be disaster insurance, but of course, what constitutes a medical disaster? I will not attempt to answer that question here.
Douthat continues by making the claim that if insurance does not actually prevent illness or death, and insurance is expensive, then we should be doing some sort of cost benefit analysis on health insurance as opposed to tax credits or even new kinds of healthcare plans. I would add to this list improved educational outcomes.
This argument is a strong one, and I think it carries much weight. As we think about ways to reduce cost means testing disaster insurance might not be a bad idea. And certainly, as Douthat mentions, in all of our endeavors, we should link funds to outcomes, in other words if health insurance isn't saving lives, we should probably find other ways to use those funds that would do more to achieve that goal.
As much as I agree with the basic ideas Douthat lays out, I do have some pushes, one of which he himself points out, which is that the Republican party is not advocating his approach; it remains a mindless mob incapable of being solutions-oriented and at war with anything Obama. So while I would support some of the ideas included in this piece if they were real policy options, I bemoan the fact that they are not real policy options.
But aside from the issue that the ideas Douthat espouses are his own and not his party's, I also question the efficacy of the study, not because I believe it is flawed, but because I believe we can achieve better results.
One of the major problems with healthcare - and indeed in many areas - is that we treat issues retroactively rather than proactively. Indeed, one of the big focus areas in Obamacare is preventative treatment. We clearly cannot make people go in for check ups any more than we can prevent them from eating Big Macs (or force them to eat broccoli), but we can invest in education, and we can enact policy that promotes healthy behavior. Public health initiatives in New York have been very effective at curbing smoking, and even though I would have preferred a tax to an outright ban, I agree with the idea behind Mayor Bloomberg's failed attempt to ban soda. Basically, while I accept that people may not use their health insurance to obtain better health outcomes, I think people could and would if they had the education, the incentive, and of course the insurance.
I'd like to see some of Douthat's ideas talked about and perhaps incorporated. Why not means test Medicare for emergency insurance? But I also think that we have a moral and economic obligation to protect our citizens, and I think the educated and proactive use of health insurance to access healthcare is the path we ought to pursue to achieve this end.
Douthat's point revolves around a 2008 study done in Oregon which showed that access to Medicaid did not affect health outcomes, that is, having health insurance may help people afford healthcare, but it didn't actually make them healthier. This is not by itself necessarily surprising. Obviously having healthcare doesn't mean you can avoid ruinous injuries or illnesses.
As Douthat himself points out, saving low-income Americans from illness-induced financial calamity would still be a major policy achievement. But the the purpose of health insurance is indeed twofold; there is a moral obligation to make life better as well as a fiscal imperative to reduce costs.
So where is this going? Douthat traces his argument to the benefits of insurance, if the benefit is mostly financial, then shouldn't health insurance be like auto insurance or home insurance and only cover disasters, not check ups? I think one could make the case that Medicare ought to be disaster insurance, but of course, what constitutes a medical disaster? I will not attempt to answer that question here.
Douthat continues by making the claim that if insurance does not actually prevent illness or death, and insurance is expensive, then we should be doing some sort of cost benefit analysis on health insurance as opposed to tax credits or even new kinds of healthcare plans. I would add to this list improved educational outcomes.
This argument is a strong one, and I think it carries much weight. As we think about ways to reduce cost means testing disaster insurance might not be a bad idea. And certainly, as Douthat mentions, in all of our endeavors, we should link funds to outcomes, in other words if health insurance isn't saving lives, we should probably find other ways to use those funds that would do more to achieve that goal.
As much as I agree with the basic ideas Douthat lays out, I do have some pushes, one of which he himself points out, which is that the Republican party is not advocating his approach; it remains a mindless mob incapable of being solutions-oriented and at war with anything Obama. So while I would support some of the ideas included in this piece if they were real policy options, I bemoan the fact that they are not real policy options.
But aside from the issue that the ideas Douthat espouses are his own and not his party's, I also question the efficacy of the study, not because I believe it is flawed, but because I believe we can achieve better results.
One of the major problems with healthcare - and indeed in many areas - is that we treat issues retroactively rather than proactively. Indeed, one of the big focus areas in Obamacare is preventative treatment. We clearly cannot make people go in for check ups any more than we can prevent them from eating Big Macs (or force them to eat broccoli), but we can invest in education, and we can enact policy that promotes healthy behavior. Public health initiatives in New York have been very effective at curbing smoking, and even though I would have preferred a tax to an outright ban, I agree with the idea behind Mayor Bloomberg's failed attempt to ban soda. Basically, while I accept that people may not use their health insurance to obtain better health outcomes, I think people could and would if they had the education, the incentive, and of course the insurance.
I'd like to see some of Douthat's ideas talked about and perhaps incorporated. Why not means test Medicare for emergency insurance? But I also think that we have a moral and economic obligation to protect our citizens, and I think the educated and proactive use of health insurance to access healthcare is the path we ought to pursue to achieve this end.
Saturday, May 4, 2013
We Get It! Why Don't They?
More shocking news! Americans have demonstrated once again that we are smarter than the people we vote into office. In a recent poll, nearly half of Americans said they think the sequester will hurt the economy, only 10% said they thought it would help. No surprise there. I'm surprised the numbers weren't even higher. Spending cuts in economic downturns don't even make sense in theory. In practice, the results have been abysmal. Europe is suffocating under the yolk of austerity. It hasn't worked anywhere. Spending cuts from the sequester and higher payroll taxes have stifled the recovery. China largely dodged the 2008 crisis through stimulus spending. America didn't get the memo, except we did, we just didn't vote for people who got the memo.
As I've pointed out before, the ironic twist of Republicans being right that the government is hurting the economy is that they're the ones doing most to impede the recovery. Does this cruel twist of fate merely illustrate their staggering misunderstanding of basic economics, or is there something else going on?
Actually the answer is both. While some hardcore tea party candidates actually do believe that the government spending needs to be cut now - those 10% of people get to elect someone after all - it is increasingly obvious that the Republican party is simply out of touch with America, caving more and more to people who simply want to deny President Obama any success and care little for the effect of their policies.
This is true for more issues than just the economy. The recent Senate vote on background checks was supported by something like 90% of Americans, and yet it failed. The idea of expanding background checks is literally the crux of the pro-gun argument, and yet the bill failed. This reflects nothing more than the fact that defeating the president is the most important item on the Republican agenda. They've turned the man into such a monster in their own heads and to their constituents that they must object to his every move to slay their own inner demons. The well-being of the country be damned.
The American people clearly get it. We favor smart spending now, smart cuts later. We support background checks. We support common sense. We get it! Why don't they? Will the Republican party learn or will their collective madness drive them to extinction?
As I've pointed out before, the ironic twist of Republicans being right that the government is hurting the economy is that they're the ones doing most to impede the recovery. Does this cruel twist of fate merely illustrate their staggering misunderstanding of basic economics, or is there something else going on?
Actually the answer is both. While some hardcore tea party candidates actually do believe that the government spending needs to be cut now - those 10% of people get to elect someone after all - it is increasingly obvious that the Republican party is simply out of touch with America, caving more and more to people who simply want to deny President Obama any success and care little for the effect of their policies.
This is true for more issues than just the economy. The recent Senate vote on background checks was supported by something like 90% of Americans, and yet it failed. The idea of expanding background checks is literally the crux of the pro-gun argument, and yet the bill failed. This reflects nothing more than the fact that defeating the president is the most important item on the Republican agenda. They've turned the man into such a monster in their own heads and to their constituents that they must object to his every move to slay their own inner demons. The well-being of the country be damned.
The American people clearly get it. We favor smart spending now, smart cuts later. We support background checks. We support common sense. We get it! Why don't they? Will the Republican party learn or will their collective madness drive them to extinction?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)