Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Being Deficit Neutral
Arianna Huffington asked Ben Stein a very good question on Larry King last night to which he had no reasonable answer. It went something like this: Why is it that we require health care reform to be deficit neutral and not require the same of war? The response to the question was that we always did it that way. China is literally banking on our continued conflicts and rising debt. It seems that we will not disappoint.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Judith,
" China is literally banking on our continued conflicts and rising debt." Absolutely! Bank and benefit they will indeed as we continue to try to solve 21st century problems with the same old tired solutions.
As for the "deficit neutral" comment...I struggle to see the relevance or the point? I'm thinking that most folks could care less about the actual cost of health care reform if it actually reformed the health care system. Besides, the majority party always has the "option" of using the reconcilliation process to pass anything in any form they want. So hey, if the majority party is thinking this bill will get it done, pull that trigger now and see how the mid-terms work out for you. But of course, the political costs of that would pale in comparison to the financial so it's business as usual.
Posturing and politics still rules over crafting good public policy. Electoral reform...think of the money that could save if the good policy not political power were the goal!
Dave - Allow me to try to clarify Arianna’s question as I see it:
Relevance - War has more power than reform. The choice is death over life. The relevance is in the causes we support endlessly (both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were never even included in the budget of the last administration--talk about politics and being unethical!) and the amounts of money we pour into one over the other as well as the unilateral vested energy of one party in particular via the industrial war complex. There are war hawks among us for the benefits to some. War is big business that used to benefit the economy now it benefits corporations. I read that the Blackwater founder is divorcing himself from the company he founded. Let's see if the outcome of this decision and if there will be any changes in the policy this company implements. Sorry to say, some other company may have been just out altogether. Halliburton still gets billion dollar contracts in spite of its ill accounting practices to the tune of hundreds of millions when in both cases our volunteer army once handled the affairs of war. This is what I see as the essence of Arianna’s question.
Point - War has more power than reform. The choice is death over life. The relevance is in the causes we support endlessly (both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were never even included in the budget of the last administration--talk about politics and being unethical!) and the amounts of money we pour into one over the other as well as the unilateral vested energy of one party in particular via the industrial war complex. There are war hawks among us for the benefits to some. War is big business that used to benefit the economy now it benefits corporations. I read that the Blackwater founder is divorcing himself from the company he founded. Let's see if the outcome of this decision and if there will be any changes in the policy this company implements. Sorry to say, some other company may have been just out altogether. Halliburton still gets billion dollar contracts in spite of its ill accounting practices to the tune of hundreds of millions when in both cased our volunteer army once handled the affairs of war. This is what I see as the essence of Arianna’s question.
The relevance and the point are one and the same.
Dave, with regards to your point on the politics of it all, it is quite obvious which party is the party of no in this present environment in an effort to absolutely control the midterm election. The party that usually goes along with war rather monolithically is even bemoaning President Obama's deployment of 30k more troops in Afghanistan--talk about political. By the way, reconciliation was used in more than one occasion in the last administration with regards to policy, some may say with regards to politics. The question you bring up is what President Obama was elected on, his effort or attempt at bi-partisanship. But I’d say that when there is just a downright oppositional party that what the people wholly want – some form of viable public option – needs to happen, reconciliation or not. The party of no is just the party of no for its survival. It is well known what could happen. There seems to be an effort to arrive at some form of bi-partisanship.
"I'm thinking that most folks could care less about the actual cost of health care reform if it actually reformed the health care system."
I disagree with this comment. I think Americans are becoming increasingly concerned about the deficit. The problem is that it seems that there are groups that are largely concerned about it for political reasons. The teabaggers, lead by Dick Armey, for example could have cared less that we were fighting two wars and who was paying for it. But yet they are bashing the cost of health care and decrying socialism. The people of the same mindset were bemoaning the deficit but loved the rhetoric of President Reagan. During his time in office the deficit rose to the greatest ever before his presidency.
The deficit is used for political reason which points to the relevance/point of Arianna’s question.
Judith,
Interesting...I've really not seen a great deal of Republican critisism on the Afgan troop decision. Some are complaining 30,000 is not the 40,000 requested but for the most part the most of the loudest critics have been the far left of his own party. This President campaigned and the Democratic Platform had a plank saying troop strength would be increased in Afghanistan. The President kept a campaign promise...and his own party is tweaked! Did they think he was just kidding?
Surveys and polls,,,I saw a Rasmuessen Report Survey that said 56% of Arkansasans oppose the current healthcare plan...which includes a public option. We have a Democratic governor and state legislature and all but one of our federally elected officials is a Democrat! I saw another one that said 57% nation wide favor tort reform. Yet the current healthcare bill mentions this not all. You can find polls and surveys to support any position. Can you get to where we need to get on healthcare without a public option? If an effective program is what the objective is then yeah. If it's to get something through before mid-terms next year...probably not.
Auntie "J", I'm hopeful that one of these days folks can discuss things without using the poll tested phrases and "buzz words". That we not judge folks by the color of their skin or political party affliation. The solutions are out there...the politicians however have no incentive to ind them. We need to remind them who they work for! This is where folks like you and I can make a difference!
Dave - Here are my thoughts on your comment.
"Can you get to where we need to get on healthcare without a public option? If an effective program is what the objective is then yeah."
OK!!!! LET'S HEAR IT!!! Simply being obstructionists when people's lives lie in the balance is not an option. A regular commenter here, Marion, has had a disastrous back surgery. She does not have insurance and she is in much pain, but can't afford the pain medicine. She and her husband have worked their entire lives. I don't care what bill passes, so as long as the insurance company will have competition that would get medicine to my friend. I have personally offered to help her pay for the medicine to relieve her immense pain. If there is another plan, better than a public option, LET’S HEAR IT!!!
"That we not judge folks by the color of their skin or political party affliation."
That's a rather funny line, Dave. I actually laughed aloud, but also wondered why you would interject skin color in this discussion. It is not relevant at all, let alone to a political party or discussion which opposes issues without bringing things to the table that could be debated rationally besides the teabagging spectacle that we have witnessed with Republican leadership in attendance like Senator Boehner giving speeches. There must be a distinction between rational and irrational voices when it comes to leadership.
You make a rather simplistic point with regards to the issue of party affiliation. The reality is that party affiliation must be addressed because the Republican Party, since the election of this President with the exclusion of Senator Snowe and Senator Collins, and a few others perhaps, has largely been a party of no. There have been documents produced like the recent Senator Judd Greg's memo one on how to "stall" the health care debate in order to kill it, not reform it. Meanwhile, Marion suffers and millions die. Her last post is heart-wrenching and desperate. Simply saying no is not a viable policy. Sorry, Dave, but his is not a Rodney King "can we all get along" moment. It is a hard-line policy matter that requires engagement and actions to relieve pain and avoid death. Sitting out and stalling are not acceptable options.
Marion has identified herself on this blog as a Republican. Read her agony and scathing words here: The Call by Kim Addonizio Much love and support to Marion!
We are talking about polls as a matter of the will of the people even with error rates which are included in the Reuters poll that I included here. Polls are indicators and the reliable ones do not engage in leading questions that suit a particular party or position. The poll that I used in the post is by Reuters which has no skin in the game, like some "think" tank polls sponsored by various invested parties.
With regards to your Arkansas poll, Scott Rasmussen seems to have some skin in the game, unlike Reuters or the AP. Rasmussen was a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign. Reuters and the AP are never a part of any political campaign. They are more than likely not to have a bias. The same cannot be said of Rasmussen.
The party affiliation must be addressed because the Republican Party, since the election of this President with the exclusion of Senator Snowe, has been a party of no. Simply saying no is not a viable option. As I said, this is not a Rodney King "can we all get along" moment. It is a hard-line policy one that requires engagement and actions. Anything shy of actually working to bring is not acceptable. As I also said, sitting out and stalling are not acceptable options. Americans are in pain and dying; some 46 millions annually die because of the lack of health care.
Let me say one other thing with regards to using "buzz words." Words are words and it's largely how they are used in addition to meaning that matter most. In fact, how they are used often induce meaning. For example, tort reform, is seen a buzz word for opposition to Democratic policy. I do not know about the poll you referenced that indicate that so many Americans are for tort reform. Is that Rasmussen too? HOWEVER, I am for rational injury compensation and for looking at the procedural policy of filing claims. These things will probably help with doctors and their ability to deliver quality health care service without fear of bankruptcy, although they need to be held accountable, and it may reduce frivolous lawsuits.
By the way, you may outright call me out on any words that you deem to be "buzz words" where I have not outlined and justified my opinion. Buzz words are typically not a part of my lingo, unless I am specifically trying to make a point. But you can be pretty sure that there will be reasoning behind it, whether others agree with me or not.
As always, thanks for your comments, Dave.
Aww Judith,
I'm glad you laughed at the skin color/party affiliation mention. That was the point. As you know I have written a lot about Dr. King and the vision he had that I have shared and have tried to live throughout my life. It should be all about the content of one's charecter, not skin color, not politics. Some folks disregard and disrespect others based on the new channel they watch. But that tactic of labeling has become the focus of political discussion. Haliburton, ACORN, Bush, Clinton, Blackwater, Whitewater, Cheney, billing records, and so on, and so on. I think it was my grandmother who said something about catching more flies with honey. Both parties perpetuate conflict and division. It's how they survive. Let's try collaboration and inclusion for a while. I know it can work as I've seen it happen in the workplace, in advocacy, in improving neighborhoods and schools. A common goal and purpose can overcome a lot of differences...it shows a great deal about the content of ones charecter.
""OK!!!! LET'S HEAR IT!!! Simply being obstructionists when people's lives lie in the balance is not an option."
Alternatives to this health care bill? Perhaps the Healthy San Francisco initiative that "makes health care accessible and affordable for the uninsured" could be a model. Folks at or below 500 percent of the poverty line are covered regardless of imigration status and current state of health. Employers pay a rate based on the number of folks they employ that is paid to a city option or to a medical reimbursement account. Access to healthcare for the uninsured was a major goal of this reform right? Or was it really about insurance reform? How about some of the initiatives employers like Whole Foods have adopted? Employers pay 100% of the premium for worker over 30 hours for a high deductible plan ($2,500 deductible out of pocket) and them provide up to $1800 more into individual Personal Wellness accounts they can use as needed and rollover a part of the remaining balance year to year. A common component of the Living Wage initiative is a requirement for an employer who does not provide insurance pays for it as a part of the cost of living formula for the area in which they live. I also read where the Republicans have offerred three plans of their own that to my knowledge can't even begin to be a part of the debate. He who who owns the majority owns the rules and procedures of the debate and the vote. As they should by the way. But options and alternatives are out there
Why would you dismiss folks who have legitmate concerns and unanswered questions about this bill as obstructionist. Why can't it be accepted that perhaps the reason they feel equally as strongly about their POV for exactly the same reason...folks lives are in the balance. What is really known about the SPECIFICS OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT COVERS AND WHAT THE COST WILL BE! Why is most simple and basic information not specified in the curent bill? That's easy...there is language in the bill that gives The HHS Secretary up to 18 months after the bill becomes law to define this information. Sorry...that makes no sense at all. Unless of course it will be four years for the benefit to begin although the taxes start immediately? Prescription drugs, dental, vision? Who knows Lives, current and future are indeed in the balance yet I hear many singing the praises of a program that is completely undefined and unknown. So one judges it's value and effectiveness how again?
We have a two party system...we need three, five, who knows. Opposition parties oppose and obstruct, as both have done and should continue to do. As for me, it seems whenever I watch or read the news I'm reminded of Judge Judy...and the title of her book "Don't Pee on My Leg and Tell Me It's Raining"...regardless of the party in power!
Thanks for making me think Auntie "J"...you're the best my friend!
Thank you for your comment, Dave. The laugh was actually a bit of a sardonic one, but I know you to be a thoughtful kind person and I have valued and enjoyed our conversations and exchanges. I also know that race is such a deeply seated issue that we have to check our hearts often. You are my friend. Of this, I am happy and have no doubt.
With regards to options, Zorro posted a link that included various international models that are great. He provided a link and you may search for it here should you desire under the title "Being for a Public Option." There are more than a few posts on the subject so I'm not sure where it is exactly.
Perhaps you can pass your ideas on to your senators. I'll read a bit about the San Francisco model. We haven't even heard about it on the news. I guess there is nothing new there. We have heard of the Boston model which I think has fiscal issues.
One thing that you will find about me if you have not understood it already is when it is time to be general I tend to be. When it is time to be specific, I tend to be also. Hence, this is the reason for my specifics with regards to the leadership of the Republican Party largely being obstructionists and the Party of no. This is a reality TODAY.
President Obama has tried to be a leader of all of the people from what I can gather. He has also seemed to lead as he sees fit deliberately and thoughtfully even with the rabid voice of Dick Cheney seeking to influence public opinion as if his leadership was flawless. It was largely disastrous.
As always, I wish you the very best.
Post a Comment