I just heard something on the radio on my way home from work that upset me. I was listening to All Things Considered on the Health Care summit that took place today and they got a chance to talk to GOP Congressman Dave Camp. This is where things got a little frustrating.
First Camp wouldn’t admit that the plan Obama presents isn’t a Federal takeover. He kept beating around the bush essentially saying it wasn’t, but wouldn’t just come out with it. Ugh! What an asshole because he obviously knows there is a difference between Federal takeover and regulation.
They talked about some other topics but one of the last ones forced me to shut off the radio. Camp was asked about Obama’s plan in relation to the GOP one. Essentially Camp said the GOP plan would work better because it would lower health care costs which would allow Americans to have more and better coverage. Yup, in so many words that was the gist of his statement. At 6:00P NPR will have the full audio to the story on their site. I will update the loose quote once I get a chance to go back and listen.
It just really pissed me off. For one that statement assumes Americans don’t understand how corporations work. Everyone knows that when given the option to have reduced cost, corporations use that lower cost as increased profit, which is one reason why corporations are always looking to reduce costs. In other words, if a Health Care Insurance company just had their costs reduced by $50 million they aren’t going to turn around and spend that same amount. Instead they would, like any other company, use the majority of that amount as a means to report increase in profit and share value. Lower costs almost always mean higher profitability.
It makes no sense to think the company would turn around and re-increase their cost thus reducing profitability. Why would a Health Insurance company turn around and give health insurance to the un-insured or high cost/risk people? THEY ARE IN THE BUSINESS TO MAKE MONEY AND/OR SHARE VALUE!! I find it hard to believe they will ever insure more high cost/risk people unless forced. It’s simple economics.
Things get even more frustrating knowing middle class people that support the GOP and agree with such a silly statement. Do they not realize what is going on? I remember watching a movie about credit cards where a pawn shop owner said he gets into discussions with clientele that are middle to lower class and Republican. He just shook his head, “I ask them, ‘Dont you get it? Don’t you realize that you are the one being affected by their policies?’ And he says they never do.
So what are we to do? How do you get it through to a middle American GOP supporter or a tea party’er? I dont know.
If you pay close attention you can see what Stewart does. Bill gives Jon Stewart so many opportunities to attack the characters of the folks on Fox News. But he doesn’t, he sticks to the ideas and issues and argues those. Take the point where Bill brings up Glenn Beck and calls him an “Everyman”. Every Liberal in the world just rolled their eyes or rolled in their graves. But Stewart calmly stuck to the issues and focused on those. And I think it helped his cause.
Anyway, below should be the whole unedited interview. I highly recommend…
Republicans have trapped themselves into a corner on this debate. They don’t want government intervention and will give all kinds of anecdotal evidence and little pieces of “facts” about how terrible the government is at doing anything. Yet when you question them they have ZERO solutions. Why? Because they backed themselves into a corner.
Think about it. If the government sucks at doing anything then how can we trust the government to keep the same health care system we have and just add stipulations to what the private companies can and cannot do. It goes against their original premise.
But this isn’t the way I go about such discussions. To me there are plenty of facts and moral obligations that those I do have discussions with could see.
In this case it’s certainly funny because it’s true. But sad at the same time… a comedian is the only one who will ask hard questions? Maybe it’s because he is the only journalist with the freedom to ask the hard questions? I have a hard time believing he is the only one that will ask the tough questions…
He looked out into a sea of people and recognized faces: technicians, secretaries, administrators, therapists, nurses, the people who are the heart and soul of any hospital. People who knew that Beth Israel had hired about a quarter of its 8,000 staff over the last six years and that the chances that they could all keep their jobs and benefits in an economy in freefall ranged between slim and none.
“I want to run an idea by you that I think is important, and I’d like to get your reaction to it,” Levy began. “I’d like to do what we can to protect the lower-wage earners – the transporters, the housekeepers, the food service people. A lot of these people work really hard, and I don’t want to put an additional burden on them.”
How do you think they all reacted? How would you react if your CEO came by and asked the same? Think about this in the context of the level you are at in your job.
I was watching “Conversations with Michael Eisner” on MSNBC. Not by choice, it just happened to be on as I was waiting for wifey to come back into the room. Eisner (upper millionaire) asked Steve Forbes (upper millionaire) what he thought about Obama’s plan to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans:
Eisner: [...] Do you think it’s a good thing? Will it have some drawbacks or will it help the economy?
Ever heard of a leading question Eisner?
Forbes: [...] I think it’s a bad thing and this is another thing Obama needs to learn coming in. When you raise taxes you change incentives and now there is less of an incentive to take risks, start new businesses… yadda yadda, I don’t want anyone coming close to the Bush tax cuts giving me free money…
Okay, so the last sentence there I added. But basically this shows me where Steve Forbes comes from. For the 5 minutes I watched I was really impressed with him, but couldn’t stomach to listen when he came to the point above.
Give me a friggin break! The majority of new business are small business in the US and they will get a tax break from Obama, thus giving an incentive to start a small business. Forbes just doesn’t want to lose his Bush tax cuts and is using Eisner’s leading question as an opportunity to cry.
Yea, I’m sure those losing their jobs in the economic downturn find Forbes appeal to even more Millions of dollars as honest.
Before we start I would like note that I still think Mitt Romney is a suit.
After I read the earlier post with both Canjun’s and Greg’s opinions about the auto bailout, I started looking for some ideas on how to manage this dilemma. Mainly ones that would involve not giving a blank check to the auto industry. I strongly believe that the fundamentals of our economy are so weak that I seriously fear the results of their bankruptcy. But simply writing a check would only delay the inevitable, our money could be better spent on other things that can feed families.
In this article I think Mitt brings up some really good ideas. As we read about his father’s experience with the auto industry we can see that he has some real insight here. I really appreciate his idea of spending much more on research that would be done at universities and in companies. I believe this would do more for the longevity of the auto industry than any amount of money.
Mitt also notes the added costs that unions have burdened the car companies with. He says that bankruptcy could relieve them of those unmanageable burdens. I would consider this a very morally hazardous position. As far as retirement is concerned Social Security simply does not provide enough to retire on and people are counting on those benefits. I do agree with this position as it relates to current workers. They are going to need to take a serious pay cut in order to keep their jobs and that is just how it is. I have seen Mitsubishi in Bloomington do it so the UAW certainly can. However morally hazardous this decision would be I fear it may be the necessary one.
At the end of the article Mitt talks about what the companies would do after they file bankruptcy and start the long road of rebuilding. I digg the idea of increasing the government funded research. The companies that keep their doors open after bankruptcy will need some help getting back on their feet. Ideally post-bankruptcy they will shed unproductive expenses and restructure themselves in order to make better use of the help that they will most certainly receive. The government handing out tax payer cash to companies doesn’t really fit my Libertarian ideology, but our economy can’t take the big three all calling it quits. The gift of free research is the best thing we could ever offer these companies.
Ok so we have a republican, a democrat, a Libertarian, and a whatever the heck Jon is all who agree another auto bailout is a bad idea. The only thing we need is a statist (any communist, fascist, or other totalitarian will do) and we have a representative from every end of the political spectrum who know a bad deal when they see one.
Mr. Fields will never know, because he and his table full of yes-men have decided for us that we don’t get the chance to show them. Once again Americans will have to go Japanese to get the cars they want.
Hybrids? Honda and Toyota hybridize cars that start out economically sized. When Detroit does hybrids, they hybridize a behemoth. And nothing else. And then they wonder…
But where I have had some influence, I’ve always encouraged the purchase of a good car, the best car for the circumstances that one can afford. Since most American cars totally suck, this usually means a foreign model.
And that, my friends, is the American way. That, my friends, is not being a socialist. That, my friends, is not giving big corporations welfare. That, my friends, is allowing market forces to optimize the economy.
So many of my readers may not know how big of a deal this is, but Cajun is very conservative (maybe border line “neo”) in his ways. And Greg Laden is very Liberal in his ways. Both I consider to be very intelligent and usually a good read.
So the fact they both agree on an issue is nice to see because it shows deep down that despite our differences we can work together if we agree there needs to be middle ground on issues. It’s when we look for differences and think “my way” is the only way, that our differences come out, we butt heads, and get nothing accomplished but wasted energy.
5 years ago when people asked me who I was politically I responded quite certainly, “A Liberal!!” Now when people ask me I think about it for a second or two and usually respond with something like, “a socialist, libertarian, conservative…” It usually makes the person think for a minute and then they usually smile and say, “Oh you are one of those middle road people?” I say, “No.” “It depends on the issue.” Then I leave it up to them to prod more if they desire.
I know there isn’t a one size shoe fits all political ideology and I am fine with that. If the policy makes sense I tend to accept it. If the acceptance of that policy makes me a liberal than fine, if it makes me conservative that’s fine too. We need to accept the fact it takes a mix to make a healthy nation by accepting we may be wrong in our thinking by listening to the other side. Then work will actually get done.
About
Welcome to my blog! Topics tend to focus on Science and Technology, but I throw in personal stuff too. I hope you enjoy!
that I seriously fear the results of their bankruptcy. But simply writing a check would only delay the inevitable, our money could be better spent on other things that can feed families.
Welcome to my blog! Topics tend to focus on Science and Technology, but I throw in personal stuff too. I hope you enjoy!
