Rebane's Ruminations
February 2011
S M T W T F S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

My email this morning contained an “open letter” by local resident Michael Anderson to the Tea Party Patriot leadership.  It was published in Jeff Pelline’s blog and sent to me by the ‘duty reader’ of Jeff’s output.  Michael excoriates the policies and efforts of the TPP and the Republicans in Congress to roll back Obamacare.  Throughout his piece Michael asserts to the TPP leadership that “You lose by default”, although it is not clear, at least to me, what such a default might be.

In reading Michael’s well written apology for the latest leftwing attempt at nationalized healthcare, his arguments stood out as those we have heard for the last two years or more from that side of the aisle.  Nevertheless, I believe that the points Michael presents are the best that the left can muster, and has no alternative but to reiterate endlessly.  His letter is consistent even to the level of not recognizing ANY of the considered conservative responses and/or alternatives to adopting the path that the Europeans are now attempting to travel in the other direction, this as the unsustainability of their socialized medicine schemes becomes clear to even their most dedicated ideologues.

In the aftermath of the federal district court ruling on Obamacare, Michael’s outpouring is another crie de couer of the progressives in the land.  Considering where this monotone mantra appeared, its purpose is really to reconstitute and rally the left to continue their push toward socialized medicine.  The effort is difficult given how this partisan monstrosity was given birth in the dead of night against historically widespread opposition across the land.

Below is Michael’s italicized letter annotated with my comments in square brackets.

 


Dear Nevada County Tea Party Patriot leaders,

I realize that these early rulings are exciting, but the end game is with the Supreme Court. If the Supremes do the right thing, they will rule that the Commerce Clause and precedent rulings for “trade that was in the national interest” will win the day. [There is no evidence from either the fiscal or healthcare perspectives that Obamacare is in the national interest.  Cato Institute’s ‘Bad Medicine – A Guide to the Real Costs and Consequences of the New Health Care Law’ by Michael Tanner is one of many rigorous analyses outlining the details of this disaster.]

You lose by default.

It is very distressing to me that so much of your effort is stuck in overturning this bill, “Obamacare” as you call it. Presidents going back to FDR recognized that first world nations were trying to come to grips with health care policy, each nation trying to find the best way to deliver exemplary care at the most reasonable cost. [And none of them has yet to find a sustainable solution which has become clear as government after government runs out of money.  We already borrow 40% of every dollar we spend.]  Our hodge-podge model has become increasingly dysfunctional over the past 4 decades, and now we are at a crisis stage.  [Our healthcare system is only one of many areas of commerce our encroaching government has made hodge-podge.  The solution is to make it simpler, not cobble more bureaucracy on top of what now struggles under the heavy hand of government.]

Only the Democratic Party has made feeble attempts to fix this broken system (excepting Bush II’s Medicare bill, which actually just served to balloon the national debt).  [Bush’s attempt is another entitlement that “just” balloons national debt as do SS and Medicaid.  If that’s all it does, ‘just’ try to remove it.]  The conservatives, the Republicans, the play-it-safers, otherwise did almost nothing. Democrats tried a number of times to reform the system, with nothing to show for it but wounds and bruises. Finally, at an extreme political cost, the Democratic Party and President Obama passed a health care bill in 2010 that is actually more conservative than what President Nixon first proposed! How weird is that?  [Not sure what comparing one progressive’s failed attempt to another progressive’s success does to support the Obamacare argument here.]

You lose by default.

For those of us who have actually been keeping score, we are not really very interested in hearing what you have to say on this issue any more.  [That has been abundantly clear from the very beginning, and gives visible lie to the ingenuous kumbayah invitations heard lately.]  Maybe in a decade or so, your voice will gain some traction once again. [Thank you, that decade started last November.]  One way you could re-engage with the national dialogue is to actually work to improve “Obamacare” and make it a better bill as time goes on.  [According to all polls, opposition to Obamacare has made dialogue out of the autocratic monologue that ushered it in.] That’s actually why it was written to be improved over time, getting rid of of the stuff that doesn’t work and implementing what does work. But if your only goal is to go back to what we had before,  [Arguing that the 2K+ page bill that no legislator has read was “written to be improved” is beyond comprehension.  The bill is so unrealistic and fiscally toxic that to date over 700 ‘friends of Obama’ organizations have been excused from its implementation, and thousands more appeals are rolling in monthly.  And weekly we hear of more expensive and job killing tangles discovered as people on both sides of the aisle are taking the time to study that hernia pack.]

You lose by default.

One thing you may not be paying enough attention to is that politically, you are in the weeds. Your Tea Party Patriot demographic absolutely cannot support a so-called Forty Year Plan. It just isn’t going to work. Generation Y is the most liberal generation since the Great Depression, and you have an extremely small percentage of their numbers that you can count as Tea Party Patriots.  [Given the usual static picture of the world that is so accessible to progressives, this statement is true.  Fortunately, over time and with more information things change as we are now seeing in Europe.  The only thing the left has on its side, and it is considerable, are the legions of socially and economically propagandized students with no sellable skills that government monopoly schools have ‘graduated’ since the Great Society.  Today we have a workforce that is marginally able to compete on world markets.  State protectionism and its inevitable costs are all that the left can offer to a growing cadre of jobless who can only hope for more redistribution.]

I realize this message will not be received with the most open of arms, and I offer it only in the hopes that you will realize that you are working at cross purposes to your own stated goal. Repealing “Obamacare” will actually land all of us in a healthcare world that is worse than when President Obama was inaugurated.  [An appropriate ending to this appeal with earplugs firmly in place.  No one in the tea party movement or on the conservative side has proposed to just repeal Obamacare, the better alternatives to which are legion.  True dialogue on American healthcare reform will not start until the left gets beyond this simplistic and erroneous view of the more beneficial alternatives that are available to us as a nation.]

Posted in , , , ,

63 responses to “Healthcare on a Leftwing and a Prayer”

  1. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Paul, you will just have too trust like you expect us to trust you. I was at home most of the year watching CSPAN and other political shows and witnessed the stuff I said. Sorry, I don’t take down notes or keep a scorecard. Same over the Bush years (except I was working and limited to nighttime). Whether it was AMWR, Judges or “pick a subject”, when it got to the Senate everything stopped. Oh, an Social Security Reform. Remember that? How many times did we all hear “dead on arrival” from Harry Reid? Come on man, you are supposed to know all this crap.

    Like

  2. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Todd
    What you offer is a overall survey of Democratic filibusters but it does not come close to answering the question as to whether the Republicans have ever offered a comprehensive health care reform program. Their main contribution has been to, yes, filibuster the Democratic attempts be it Clinton or Obama to address this urgent need. So, you can’t have it both ways Todd condemning the Dems for filibusters and supporting the same tactics by Republicans. So, aside from the current Republican offerings which I will look at as promised it appears that there has been no Republican effort for healthcare reform other than to act as opposition to whatever pathetic attempts the Democrats make.
    You have a real disadvantage here because you are a Republican and I don’t support either party with this one because both are influenced by the same big money interests that prevent any meaningful reform.

    Like

  3. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Paul, I never condemner the use of the filibuster, where did you come up with that? Regarding a comprehensive plan on healthcare. What the heck is that? Because the democrats call something comprehensive or reform that means it is? Wow, propaganda does work. The system we have, the free market system, is the best on the planet. The reasons I see why parts of it are a problem is because your friends on the left have interjected themselves into the equation when they should butt out. The Republicans have tried to fix the overreach by the left by submitting bills to fix things. Well Paul, just like in Sacramento, if you have a minority status as a party, you don’t even get to committee. The repairs of the broken parts could happen if the bills submitted by responsible politicians had been allowed to get a vote. You are actually the one that is disadvantaged Paul, you have no one representing your views as a party in authority in Sacramento or DC. I do.

    Like

  4. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    What else would it be (filibuster) when you have control of both houses and the Pres. I’m not talking about minority status here. I’m just saying when they had the ability to do something they did nothing.
    Let’s look at it this way. Let’s assume there is a real problem that needs a solution, in this case health care. Now if you believe that it’s not a problem that has to be dealt with then we have a difference right off the bat but let’s assume we agree on this . We (the people) hired the Republicans through the ballot box to come up with a solution and gave them the majority to assert leadership and come up with a plan. They did little or nothing during their tenure and in fact the problem got worse.
    We then hire another team (Democrats) and they come up with a plan and get it through the process and it becomes law. Now the old team (Republicans) raise a fuss and say they have a better plan and we should dump the new plan and use theirs. Fair enough but why should I trust the team that did nothing to suddenly come up with a course of action that they could have introduced when they had the majority? Pretty basic stuff.
    Todd, thanks for being concerned about my lack of representation. I’ll be ok.

    Like

  5. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Paul I have answered your question three times. It appears my answers don’t help you understand so I am unable to proceed.

    Like

  6. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    This time I didn’t ask a question. It was more of a statement as to why I don’t take the Republicans very seriously. I am much more interested in the opinions of unaffiliated independent thinkers than regurgitation
    of the dogma of either party.

    Like

  7. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Try the Daily Worker.

    Like

  8. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    George,
    I’m catching up on my homework. First the GOP plan then later the Denmark system.
    As promised I looked at the GOP health care plan. This is from http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare
    • Lowering health care premiums. The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American
    families and small businesses, addressing Americans’ number-one priority for health care reform.
    A grand statement but how is this accomplished? No details
    • Establishing Universal Access Programs to guarantee access to affordable health care for those
    with pre-existing conditions. The GOP plan creates Universal Access Programs that expand and
    reform high-risk pools and reinsurance programs to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of pre-
    existing conditions or past illnesses, have access to affordable care – while lowering costs for all
    Americans.
    Is this going to be forced on current insurance companies or is it a new insurance program? Another good idea but it seems to imply Federal creation and enforcement.
    • Ending junk lawsuits. The GOP plan would help end costly junk lawsuits and curb defensive medicine
    by enacting medical liability reforms modeled after the successful state laws of California and Texas.
    Sure why not. Euro systems all have strict thresholds on lawsuits. So if California is an example of reform why do rates keep going up?
    • Prevents insurers from unjustly cancelling a policy. The GOP plan prohibits an insurer from
    cancelling a policy unless a person commits fraud or conceals material facts about a health condition.
    Again uses the word prohibits meaning some kind of government mandate. How is that different from Obama’s dictum’s? I imagine applicants would go through some kind of screening and exams ant they sould take the cram of the crop and discard the rest. Where does that leave the rejects? Who if anyone would insure them? Also “conceals material facts” is an easy out for insurance company lawyers. Would tort reform include these kind of legal actions?
    • Encouraging Small Business Health Plans. The GOP plan gives small businesses the power to pool
    together and offer health care at lower prices, just as corporations and labor unions do.
    No problem. Why can’t they do that now?
    • Encouraging innovative state programs. The GOP plan rewards innovation by providing incentive
    payments to states that reduce premiums and the number of uninsured.
    Good. We can reward Mass. who has the fewest percentage of uninsured due to an Obama like system enacted under Romney. In the reverse why not pnalize the highest uninsured State meaning in this case Texas.
    • Allowing Americans to buy insurance across state lines. The GOP plan allows Americans to shop for
    coverage from coast to coast by allowing Americans living in one state to purchase insurance in another.
    Why is this prohibited now? Seems like a good idea but someone doesn’t like it. I could use some help here.
    • Promoting healthier lifestyles. The GOP plan promotes prevention & wellness by giving employers
    greater flexibility to financially reward employees who adopt healthier lifestyles.
    Here we go again. How do you legislate healthy lifestyles? Some sort of Federal health cop that you turn a report card into? Good idea but how do you do it without violating what is considered sacred rules of privacy and freedom.
    • Enhancing Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). The GOP plan creates new incentives to save for
    current and future health care needs by allowing qualified participants to use HSA funds to pay
    premiums for high deductible health insurance.
    Can’t anyone do that on their own? Isn’t that permissible under the current system. I save money and buy insurance. The question is what does “enhancing” mean? Is it some kind or tax credit?
    • Allowing dependents to remain on their parents’ policies. The GOP plan encourages coverage of
    young adults on their parents’ insurance through age 25.
    The word is “encourages” Does that mean that we say “Insurance companies please allow young adults to stay on their parents coverage…..” It’s the old should rather than shall context that means nothing.
    That’s the best I can do with this. There’s not much here on cutting expenses or health care expectations or reform to create health care clinics. Also, how does this address the huge cost of emergency services. It seems a bit empty to me. Perhaps in the long run it could create improvement but right now the patient is bleeding and there is no help in sight.

    Like

  9. Steven Frisch Avatar

    I am not sure where to put the bold, gloating, headline statement I TOLD YOU SO!

    Like

  10. Michael Anderson Avatar

    A great day indeed.
    Not only is the camel’s nose under the tent, the ENTIRE FRIGGIN’ CAMEL is now under the canvass!
    Next stop: Single Payer.

    Like

  11. Steven Frisch Avatar

    Michael, I will just have to assume that people who don’t work anymore don’t get up nearly as early as we do! I am sure the rhetoric will be flying by 10 am, while you and I are out contributing to building a new world.

    Like

  12. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    So if the Right loses at the Supreme Court level, then the retreat is to States Rights? Like it or not, the one percent is simply not going to be allowed to perform genocide on the 99%, so it is high time the one percent SERIOUSLY figure out how they are going to create jobs in the USA, or how they are going to set up a system that recognises that the wealth in the hands of the one percent, and the current investments, would have never have come about without the 99% and their fore-bearers efforts.(spelling via spell checker, I still think there is no hypen)
    Looking for metaphors? As Nero was to Rome, so are the current far Right to the USA, and why should they rest of us have to repeat history, just because they can’t remember it?
    Myth #7: An unavoidable price for progress
    Claims that the disaster was the unavoidable price to be paid for pioneering a new frontier were self-serving rationalizations on the part of those responsible for incompetent engineering management — the disaster should have been avoidable. NASA managers made a bad call for the launch decision, and engineers who had qualms about the O-rings were bullied or bamboozled into acquiescence. The skeptics’ argument that launching with record cold temperatures is valid, but it probably was not argued as persuasively as it might have been, in hindsight. If launched on a warmer day, with gentler high-altitude winds, there’s every reason to suppose the flight would have been successful and the troublesome seal design (which already had the attention of designers) would have been modified at a pace that turned out to have been far too leisurely. The disaster need never have happened if managers and workers had clung to known principles of safely operating on the edge of extreme hazards — nothing was learned by the disaster that hadn’t already been learned , and then forgotten.
    NBC News space analyst James Oberg spent 22 years at NASA’s Johnson Space Center as a Mission Control operator and an orbital designer.

    Like

Leave a comment