The Healthcare Summit

I'm watching the healthcare summit. The president has pointed out that where the gov't steps in is to create a baseline standard of care. I've thought this should happen even when I was still a conservative. It seems like an obvious point. I have yet to see a Republican take this point on. Instead I hear from Republicans: "if people pay less then they will get less coverage, and if people pay more they'll get more coverage." But the people paying less are only getting high deductible catastrophic coverage which doesn't do crap for preventative medicine and routine medical needs. And that's a big part of the problem.

But to be fair. I would like to see a Democrat address the claim that employers will be more willing to drop people from their coverage and pay the fine because the fine will be cheaper.

Speechless

From Politico--

PALIN: It depends on a few things. Say he played, and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day.(Good job Sarah, you read a newspaper) Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran, or decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do. But that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, I do not think Obama would be re-elected.

But three years from now things could change if on the national security threat --

WALLACE: You're not suggesting that he would cynically play the war card.

PALIN: I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying, if he did, things would dramatically change if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies. I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he's tougher than we think he is today. And there wouldn't be as much passion to make sure that he doesn't serve another four years --

WALLACE: But assuming he continues on the path that he going on and we don't have that rally around the flag (ph) --

PALIN: Then he's not going to win.

The prospects of this woman actually being nominated as a presidential candidate is terrifying. Obama should "toughen up", and start a war. Nice. Palin's take on foreign policy sounds like a drunken college frat boy playing alpha male and trying to impress a girl.

And then there's this gem--

Palin, who slammed Emanuel last week for calling liberal activists "f---ing retards," declined to ask conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh to apologize for using the term "retards" on his nationally syndicated show, saying Limbaugh used the word as satire.

"I didn't hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people who he did not agree with f---ing retards and we did know that Rahm Emanuel, it's been reported, did say that. There's a big difference there," said Palin, whose youngest son Trig has Down Syndrome.

Palin made the comment after Wallace asked her about this Limbaugh quote: "Our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult's taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards. ... I mean these people, these liberal activists, are kooks."

"Should Rush Limbaugh apologize," Wallace asked.

Palin responded, "They are kooks so I agree with Rush Limbaugh."

I can't even comment on this because I know people who support this woman, and I don't want to insult them. I don't even know what to say. She is an absolute joke. The hypocrisy is just astounding. Just decry Limbaugh's comment! But she can't. And that's how bad it's gotten.

Why???

A question I have been pondering this past week is: Why can't we just have a real bipartisan health care reform bill?

The Republicans want tort reform and to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. They argue that tort reform would reduce costs because doctors order unnecessary tests and such to cover their butts in case they are sued. Greater competition, the argument goes will greatly lower costs as well. Fair enough.

The Democrats want greater regulation of insurance companies to make sure they do not deny care based on "pre-existing conditions" and cherry pick the healthy people over the sick. They (and Bill O'Reilly??!!) also want a public option to keep insurance companies honest and create competition. Both sides agree on many cost-cutting measures such as comparative effectiveness, electronic medical records and preventive medicine.

So why not have a bill with all these things?? If we can have a public option, the Dems could say, then we'll support insurance companies competing across state lines etc... Instead it looks like we're going to get more watered-down mediocrity that isn't even going to get Republican support. What a waste.

Partisanship Fails Again

I've been trying to digest this whole stimulus mess. I've gone back and forth sometimes believing that the Republicans need to keep the spending on pet Democratic programs in check, and sometimes believing that the Dems just need to go all out, and do their thing. I've been disappointed that Obama has seemed to give up on bi-partisanship, and been annoyed at the fact that the Republicans don't give a crap about bi-partisanship. But as the Senate comes to a deal on this, and as I gorge myself on opinion and analysis on this issue, my thoughts are this: Partisanship fails again.

As usual, Robert Samuelson lays it all out:

"Unfortunately, investing in tomorrow won't automatically stimulate the economy today. The $819 billion program passed by the House will only slowly provide stimulus. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in fiscal 2009 (through this September) about 21 percent of the new spending and tax cuts will flow to the economy. For 2010, the estimate is another 44 percent. The total of 65 percent means that, by CBO's estimate, about a third of the $819 billion package would be spent after fiscal 2010."

''Or take the $39 billion in the House bill for added highway and transit construction. That's nearly double existing funding levels. When queried, state officials worried about how fast they could "adjust their contracting procedures" for such a big increase, reports CBO. As stimulus, the better course would simply be to give more money to states and localities -- and order them to spend it. Most would plug deficits, avoiding program cuts and layoffs."

"What's also sacrificed are measures that, though lacking in long-term benefits, might help the economy now. A $7,500 tax credit for any homebuyer in the next year (and not just first-time buyers, as is now in the bill) might reduce bloated housing inventories. Similarly, a temporary $1,500 credit for car or truck purchases might revive sales, which are down a third from 2007 levels. Normally, these targeted incentives would be unjustified; today, they may be necessary expedients."

"The decision by Obama and Democratic congressional leaders to load the stimulus with so many partisan projects is politically shrewd and economically suspect."

Don't get me wrong, I think some long term projects should be included, but I also think the bill is loaded with too many "partisan projects." But is Obama to blame? I would agree with Pat Buchannan who, on the Mclaughlin Group, said that Obama isn't to blame; Pelosi is. Pat also added that he believes Obama is really unhappy with the bill, but is pushing it to please his party. And while I think that some of the Republican criticisms are probably valid, all I seen from them is ideology and their same ol' solution of cutting taxes for people who aren't going to spend it. What we needed was a stimulus package that was mainly immediate stimulus. What we got is a Democratic project loaded package that did nothing but create partisan bickering. Which isn't to say that I don't believe in what much of the Dem's want to do, I do, but this wasn't the right time. I know they think it was, but their reasons for thinking that wasn't the change I, nor most Americans, voted for.