Why JFK?
Democrats have made a habit of laughing at Republicans for constantly looking for the next Ronald Reagan even though they themselves are constantly looking for the next John F. Kennedy. I’ve often found this curious and was hoping that some of our friendly liberal liberals could explain it to me. You see, people like me yearn for another Reagan because of his policies. Sure, he was a great communicator and had other great traits, but primarily I’m interested in a president who supports smaller government, a strong national defense, and capitalism. He wasn’t perfect on the issues, but he was as close as we’ve seen in a long time.
But I don’t see how Kennedy would be attractive to most modern Democrats. He was a Cold Warrior. He cut taxes. He was tough on crime. He had an activist foreign policy of thwarting communism (Vietnam, Cuba, etc.). His CIA provided lists of communists to the Baathists regime after their coup so they could purge their country. He did not commute the sentences of crooks who were put to death by the federal government. I mean, other than the fact that JFK was handsome, spoke well, and cheated on his wife, why do Democrats want another JFK?
I can’t speak for liberals, but I’d say Kennedy’s domestic policy, in particular his “New Frontier” stuff, is pretty much what modern liberals are looking for. Public money for education and health care, ending racial discrimination, that sort of thing. I guess many of these platforms did not go into effect until after his death, but I think people associate them with him.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2008 at 2024 hrs
We’re not constantly looking for the next JFK. All the Republicans were pretending to be Reagan during one debate, and much of the campaign was like than on and off. Some have compared Obama to JFK recently because of his youth and speaking ability. There’s been an amusing little stir as each candidate snaps up the endoresement of a few relatives, but it didn’t start until recently, and certainly hasn’t shifted the polls.
Posted by David Weisman on February 11, 2008 at 2055 hrs
It’s been a yearning I’ve noticed for several years. Whenever there’s a promising rising Democrat, the talk starts of him being “the next JFK.” It’s the same as on the Republican side where every promising rising Republican is described as “the next Reagan.” It’s not a new phenomenon.
Posted by Owen on February 11, 2008 at 2057 hrs
Good question. But I think we seek the mood that JFK lived. Let me explain.
Some might argue that in a time of war, recession, and limited federal funds, that there is no ability to do anything than just meet the needs of the immediate future. That is perhaps the safe way to think, but it is not the American way. Ours has always been a course of going down the path where the unknown is more a hope than a certainty. And as a result we are more gritty and driven as a people. And richer in every way imaginable.
One of the benefits of a new national effort of some bold type, advanced by one of the major presidential candidates, would be to create a new sense of commonality that is so lacking in our nation today. I sense often that there is no one big blanket approach to our politics, but instead a series of small patches that are designed to only divide, but never bind one to another. My feelings were underscored in the New York Times when Frank Rich quoted Mark Penn, a top campaign strategist to Hillary Clinton. Penn advocates “the niching of America,” observing that “there is no one America anymore” but “hundreds of Americas.” He postulates that “Americans overwhelmingly favor small, reasonable ideas over big, grandiose schemes.”
Mark Penn is the type of bottom feeder that stifles lofty ideas, the type of ideas that in the past has made our history rich and dynamic. Can you imagine the reaction that President Kennedy would have had for the taming of ideas, or the limiting of dreams?
That is the mood we want back.
Posted by Gregory on February 11, 2008 at 2131 hrs
I don’t think Democrats are pining for Kennedy with the same regularity and fervor with which Republicans pine for Reagan. You guys basically do this every election: who’s most like Reagan? Which candidate loves him the most? I don’t think you really see that same sort of thing as much with Democrats.
Of course this year it’s more of an issue with us because we actually have a candidate who, like Kennedy, represents a new generation of leadership and who is as inspirational as Kennedy was.
Posted by scott on February 11, 2008 at 2150 hrs
And you know what else bugs me? Even Reagan himself wasn’t Reagan enough. I mean, he raised taxes. Twice, I think.
Posted by scott on February 11, 2008 at 2154 hrs
He also signed an amnesty bill. Like I said, he wasn’t perfect on the issues.
I suspect that you are correct with regards to the frequency of the pining, but that has more to do with the passage of time. Reagan is within the living memory of far more Americans than is Kennedy.
Posted by Owen on February 11, 2008 at 2159 hrs
A hearty hear hear Owen for your point that it’s Democrats who cheat on wives.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2008 at 2229 hrs
Me thinks you reach too much. I was not saying that only Dems - or even predominately Dems - cheat on their wives. I was merely making the subtle commentary that Democrats are more likely to see this as a non-issue, or even a virtue, than most Republicans. JFK’s infidelity is the stuff of legend, and worship.
Posted by Owen on February 11, 2008 at 2234 hrs
If you look strictly at their policy stances and their records Reagan would not be conservative enough for the current conservatives and JFK would not be liberal enough for the current liberals.
JFK is admired for his ability to motivate and inspire the electorate to get behind a progressive agenda in a time of uncertainty. Like Reagan he has taken on mythical status for inspiring change.
In both cases I think the zeitgeist has more to do with the power of the movement that rallied behind them than with the individuals themselves.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2008 at 2234 hrs
That’s a good observation, 3rd Way.
Posted by Owen on February 11, 2008 at 2238 hrs
“Or even a virtue,” Owen? Jesus H. Christ. I have never heard anyone speak of JFK’s infidelity with anything like “worship.”
Kennedy wasn’t a modern Democrat because he aggressively lowered taxes? Sure. But what were the tax rates in 1960, hm? Perhaps I’d feel like lowering a lot of taxes, too, if we had rates like that. Only we don’t. I just don’t think that kind of comparison can be too helpful.
Posted by scott on February 11, 2008 at 2300 hrs
Hey, Scott. You have them. The average tax rate in 1960 was 0.13, while in 2006 it’s 0.122. Pre-W it was 0.152, or higher than Kennedy. In fact, all of the sainted RR’s marginal rates were well above Kennedy’s era.
So, if you get the policies of either Obie or HRC we’ll return to tax rates well above the Kennedy era. Are you ready to bend over and take it?
As to the ethics, let’s be blunt: there are two distinct standards in modern politics. One applies to the GOP, one to the Dems. In the GOP if you talk suggestively to a young but of consenting age adult you get permanently bounced from politics. For the Dems, you can shack up with a gay pimp, use your connections to fix his parking tickets, have your place used as a brothel, and still get committee chairmanships and reverent approval. It’s one of the perks of being a member of the party of relativism and questionable morals.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2008 at 2317 hrs
I don’t understand that too. Aside from the good looks, I don’t know much about JFK or how he was as a president.
Posted by Humus on February 12, 2008 at 0406 hrs
JFK is just I guess what the country people still feel as the epitome of the perfect president. But this judgement is more of the clouded kind. People’s opinions have been tainted by the qualities that only they want to see in JFK not what they actually see in reality.
Posted by Viktor on February 12, 2008 at 0603 hrs
Interesting you bring this up. The other day after listening to Hillary and Obama promise what they were going to give to people (free healthcare) I couldn’t help but think how far democrats have come.
From “ask not what your country can do for you” to making promises of what you will get from the government under each candidates respective administration.
Then again, perhaps “what you can do for your country” means how much you can pay in.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 12, 2008 at 1229 hrs
Hey, Scott. You have them. The average tax rate in 1960 was
The top marginal tax rate in 1960 was 90%, man. Today it’s, what, 39%?
Posted by scott on February 12, 2008 at 1240 hrs
I am just parroting here, because I never really studied JFK, but my ‘liberal’ College Professor for American political history preached for 3 hours on why (at the time) JFK was the worst President in American History from the standpoint of accomplishments. Underneath all his grandiose ideas, he never managed to get anything done. That last was more or less a quote. Just thought it was interesting.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 12, 2008 at 1628 hrs
Perhaps “what you can do for your country” could, just for once, apply to the corporations who have been given everything they have asked for by nearly 30 years of Republican presidents and congresses. When tax loopholes allow corporations to “move” to the Cayman Islands to avoid paying any taxes, and those corporations show their gratitude by moving the jobs overseas as well, when corporate CEOs eliminate thousands of jobs, drive their companies into near-bankruptcy and walk away with multimillion dollar golden parachutes and the SEC turns a blind eye, well, xx, is it really any wonder that ordinary citizens wonder if it’s not too much to ask if perhaps just a tiny bit of that largesse goes their way after they’ve been the main ones paying in while watching all this going on?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 12, 2008 at 1633 hrs
I would love to see a tiny bit come my way, but if Canada or Europe or Asia makes a better offer…2% of 0 is zero. What specific avenues are you proposing apc? The problem is that since mass transit, mass transport, and mass media have taken over business, the big investors and investor groups can pick the best of all worlds(or nations in this case). Tax a corporation to the point that it is cheaper to import in to the US and most corporations will move out of the country. It is a worldwide problem of all free market societies, but taking away the free market(nationalizing or taxing, for instance are good free market inhibitors) is the best and most efficient way to ruin a national economy. What is the liberal answer?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 12, 2008 at 1658 hrs
Tax a corporation to the point that it
Man am I sick of this kind of BS. Did you know that more than half of American corporations pay NO income tax? Did you know that 95% of them pay LESS than 5%? Give it a rest already with the “we’re taxing businesses sooo hard!” whining.
Posted by scott on February 12, 2008 at 1701 hrs
I’m not sure what you’re asking when you say ‘what specific avenues,’ but if you’re asking what I think might be an appropriate place to start to balance to the uneven playing field that corporations have been able to erect in their favor through the years, oh, I don’t know, maybe a health care system something like the one that works pretty well in the rest of the world, unlike the cluster**** of a health care system we have here, one where the phrase, “I can’t take my child to the doctor. Are you kidding? I can’t afford that” isn’t heard all the time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 12, 2008 at 2109 hrs
Scott,
He agreed to raise taxes several times. Google Bruce Bartlett and NRO on the subject.
Aside from amnesty he also ran from terror in Lebanon.
IYAM, both Reagan and Jesus would be mocked as communist hippies if either of them posted on a right-wing blog today.
...
Partisan, ideological politics is religion; and every religion needs its saints, whose real records become forgotten and meaningless over time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 12, 2008 at 2121 hrs
Did you know that more than half of American corporations pay NO income tax?
What scott meant to say was Did you know that more than half of American corporations pay NO income tax? To the states that they do business in.
They are STILL required to pay FEDERAL income tax.
See in scotts and Russ Deckers perfect world, companies like Exxon-Mobil which do business in all 50 states should also have to pay individual income taxes to each state.
And could you imagine what kind of nightmare that would create?
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on February 12, 2008 at 2229 hrs
Besides that Michael, does it ever bug you that Scott reads what he wants to read, not what is written? My comment could not have been further from whining about overtaxing corporations, but that is what he saw. Scott, when you realize that the reason you are sick of repeating yourself is because you answer many different questions with the same answer, maybe others will listen to you a little more.
apc, my statement was that if we tried to tax corporations today they could simply move their businesses (or parts of it)across borders. So while we would still pay for the good or service, and have the retail jobs for that, all the higher paying admin jobs, and the production jobs could be gone. By ‘specific avenues’ I meant how do we get more money out of the corporation without having it get up and move or increasing their prices? So if your first answer is to get corporations to pay for insurance/medical, 1) They already pay a portion in the US, but they don’t in India. If we make them pay bigger bills here, correspondingly more corporations could move. 2) At what size corporation do you make them pay for insurance, because smaller ones may not be able to afford it. I am not trying to just shoot down your argument, nor am I looking for a complete plan. I would like to see a sensible idea come off a liberal keyboard on this subject. So far no one has even understood the question, so I won’t hold my breath.
How would a liberal Government get more money from a corporation without having the corporation just move major portions out that Government’s country?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2008 at 0831 hrs
What scott meant to say was Did you know that more than half of American corporations pay NO income tax? To the states that they do business in.
They are STILL required to pay FEDERAL income tax.
No, that’s completely wrong.
My comment could not have been further from whining about overtaxing corporations, but that is what he saw.
What’s this, then?
Tax a corporation to the point that it is cheaper to import in to the US and most corporations will move out of the country.
Posted by scott on February 13, 2008 at 0930 hrs
TUERQAS, Companies are already simply moving their businesses and production jobs “across borders.” I think the companies that do this should pay a substantial penalty of some kind for doing so. For far too long, the “unpatriotic” label has been thrown in the face of liberals for simply opposing any facet at all of the foreign policy misadventures of the Bush administration, no matter how poorly thought out or how disastrous their consequences. I maintain that it’s unpatriotic for a company to deliberately avoid paying its fair share of taxes through offshore tax havens and to to export jobs to sweat shops overseas. I’m just saying that for nearly 30 years, government has catered to the whims of corporations to the exclusion of the needs of ordinary citizens, and it’s time to return a little balance to the equation.
I just want corporations to pay their fair share. Scott’s right. Right now, they’re not carrying their share of the load. Ordinary citizens are carrying a disproportionate share, especially considering the ever-escalating percentage of profits most multi-national corporations are raking in.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2008 at 0931 hrs
Oh, and you’re right, I’m not sure I understand your question. If you’re asking at what size do I want corporations to pay for insurance, I don’t. I favor single-payer, Medicare style coverage for everybody. It’s the most efficient thing out there right now, with the possible exception of the VA system.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2008 at 0936 hrs
Scott, it is a statement of fact. Any single country can push only so hard on taxes, fees, etc. before a corporation looks at other venues. How is it whining to merely point out that it is a calculated risk to raise taxes on corporations that have infrastructure in multiple countries? I would love to see my tax burden lowered by taking money from corporations. The problem I see is that there is a limit to how much you can push any corporation that can go or is already multinational. It doesn’t matter how little they pay now, if Bangladesh will give them cash or subsidies and promise no taxes for a company to build there, what would you do as CEO? Would you make 10 billion for you and your investors by moving to Bangladesh or 3 billion by staying in the states and Europe?
apc, I agree with you that it is unpatriotic, uncool, etc. I am not sure corporations are not paying their ‘fair share’, because I am not sure how much they should pay or could be made to pay. I do not think it is unpatriotic to be against the war in Iraq, but that and your insurance desires just aren’t germane to the subject. This thread had developed in to whether corporations paid as much as they should be in taxes. I asked how would you get them to pay more without them leaving the country. Mulitinational corporations can hardly be held to a ‘patriotic’ standard when they are already doing production and admin business in 12 countries.
I never asked anything about insurance, you mentioned it and I did not understand the context. My question seems to bear repeating one more time for clarity:
“How would a liberal Government get more money from a corporation without having the corporation just move major portions out (of) that Government’s country?” Or, what would you (anyone with a liberal mindset) suggest?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2008 at 1031 hrs
First of all, only the largest (and wealthiest) corporations have the wherewithall to move major portions of their operations overseas, the very corporations who are best able to pay their fair share. Second, it’s fairly easy to get that fair share. Simplify the tax code by eliminating the loopholes that make it profitable to move overseas and/or penalize the companies that do so. I make no claim to be some kind of tax expert, but this has to be doable.
As to your comment in the Venezuela thread about rich people paying for all the social programs—I don’t necessarily want them to pay for all the social programs. I want the cost of social programs to be spread equitably across all of society. That is not the case today.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2008 at 1222 hrs
1st point, you may be right because I am not an expert either, but I have firsthand experience with a corporation that recently shut manufacturing down 2 years ago in the US, but kept their 2 plants (one in Italy and one in Argentina) open because the cost of doing business was cheaper at the other two plants. They are not part of a conglomerate. 3 plants, one shut down… that is obviously not a norm, my point is they are not all that big and the US lost. I totally agree with simplifying the tax code, but those lucrative loopholes may be what is keeping some of those corps here.
2nd point, I agree with wholeheartedly and simplifying the tax code would ease that as well, the question is: How progressive is ‘fair’?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2008 at 1302 hrs
The most likely reason it costs less to do business in Italy is because they have universal health insurance, not because of their corporate income taxation (which I would guess to be larger than ours, but don’t really know.)
Posted by scott on February 13, 2008 at 1305 hrs
How progressive is fair? I dunno. But for the purposes of this discussion, I lumped corporations and rich folks together as a rhetorical device, and I didn’t make that very clear. Sorry about that. But you’re right, simplifying the tax code would likely go a long way toward easing a lot of problems.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2008 at 1356 hrs
Scott, I don’t know how Europeans tax their corporations so I wouldn’t guess. The people pay for it though, one way or another. If the corporations paid more of what THEY thought of as their fair share in income tax many would not stay in Europe. I would not be at all surprised if the common folk of Europe thought their fat cats did not pay a fair share either. Government run health care might be better. You have not convinced me of it in the least, but I am not some blind Republican either. Let us get one thing straight, however, the Government does not pay for anything! The people pay the Government and it doles it back out in the forms that (hopefully) the majority finds preferable. My point is that whether it is mandatorily subsidizing insurance for its workers or whether you pay a higher income tax percentage overall, the overall costs are considered by any corporation with the resources to expand or move to new places so part of healthcare is paid by corporations in one form or another everywhere.
apc, I think we agree. I did not realize you were lumping the rich individual with corporations and to me that makes all the difference. I do believe the rich should actually pay the % the Government (read the majority of people) requires them to and I think they don’t through all the loopholes etc. I don’t really think a corporation should be taxed (at least not heavily), I think the income of the rich should be taxed. Simplifying the tax code was Reagan’s greatest deed in my opinion and the main reason I have such respect for him personally. It should be done again and rules made to inhibit future complications, but then where would all our politicians get their nest eggs?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2008 at 1440 hrs
Let us get one thing straight, however, the Government does not pay for anything! The people pay the Government
Well duh. Nobody here is confused about that. My point is simply that you point out that a company you know closed its US plant and kept open its Italian one, suggesting that it had to do with the cost of doing business in these respective locations. You said that in the context of corporate taxes. And I’m saying that if the cost of doing business is lower in italy it is probably because of the enormous health insurance costs American employers have to pay compared to their European counterparts.
As far as corporations not being taxed, I’m not so sure I agree with you. When a company incorporates it is allowed to hold assets and debt independent of its owners or shareholders. We give it these benefits that protect the people involved. We let the non-person person bear the risk while the actual people get protected. Are you sure it’s unfair or inappropriate to turn around and charge that non-person person income taxes? After all, it holds independent assets and debt.
Posted by scott on February 13, 2008 at 1450 hrs
It could be that, or it could be that Italy is its place of origin. If what you just said is true, doesn’t that prove against your larger point that corps are not paying enough? My point has been from the start that it does not matter how little they pay IF they can or do pay less somewhere else the US would lose out. If the US is the best place, it will stay here or come here. Others may have, but I have never been whining that corps pay too much, I have been looking at it from a simple business standpoint from the beginning. If it saves enough money, a corp will move.
As far as taxing the non-person person, I have no problem with breaking down the loopholes or taxing to a degree. I am just saying that until there is a world Government, you can’t tax so much that a corp will move to another, better tax environment. I think the Government has already been through this many times. If there is a subsidy for a healthy corp, it may be that the Government had to make that sacrifice to keep the corp in the borders. The only other explanation for corporate tax breaks and loopholes is corruption, another thing you have said is not that prevalent when defending big Government. I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it too, as it were.
What are other major reasons for tax breaks and loopholes? I think if you want to support both of those past arguments (namely, that we do not tax corps enough and that bigger Government is better for the majority) you will need to tell me other reasons… at least to convince me of Government run healthcare, for instance.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2008 at 1529 hrs
I have never been whining that corps pay too much, I have been looking at it from a simple business standpoint from the beginning. If it saves enough money, a corp will move.
Then why don’t we simply eliminate all forms of taxation on corporations, repeal OSHA, child labor, minimum wage, overtime and environmental protection laws? I mean, if we don’t they’ll just all move to someplace that does!
We cannot race to the bottom with the developing world to save our jobs. We will have gained absolutely nothing if we try to do that.
If we want to give corporate America a break, let’s get tax-funded health insurance for every citizen. That alone would be an incredible shot in the arm for businesses all across the country.
After all, if we don’t our competitor nations will!
Oops, they already have…
Seriously. I think it’s probably one of the things that’s working against our competitiveness in America. Way more than corporate taxes.
Posted by scott on February 13, 2008 at 1534 hrs
I will accept your sarcasm as (hopefully) not aimed at me specifically, and answer your serious question with an “I don’t know but…”
You may be right. I do believe that history has emphatically shown that Government run businesses throughout the world at worst fail doing long term harm to an economy and at best provide a decent service, but stifle competition and thus advances in the area of impact. Maybe taking healthcare out of the marketplace is best for all, but I would rather put it back in the marketplace without the current bindings. If the majority wins in this and healthcare is universalized I am not going to cry until it doesn’t work for me. I hatefully admit that there are voluntary exams that I do not do every year because it would cost too much. Universal healthcare may help a lot of things, but I do not think it will be a shot in the arm to the market in any direct sense. It is more likely that will be one of the negative tradeoffs we accept for universal care.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2008 at 1609 hrs
I think we have a different read on history, that’s for sure. It’s just as appropriate to say that totally unrestricted capitalism doesn’t work well for a society as it is to say that completely government-owned production doesn’t work for a society. We’re a mixed economy, with some private and some public enterprises. Where exactly we’re drawing the line between them is an issue for much debate and discussion, but it’s simply not helpful to say government regulation or control is always bad and market forces are always good. Social Security isn’t “bad.” And it solves a problem that every western nation has faced in the last century. In fact, nobody has figured out a better way to handle it than through the government, funded by taxes. There are a whole host of issues like that—and health insurance is one of them. Look around at the rest of the world! They all pay FAR less than we do, everyone is covered, and their care is comparable!
American businesses would jump at the chance to wake up tomorrow with a Canadian or UK health care system. Ask any American automaker why they can’t compete. Wasn’t it Ford’s CEO that warned us recently about health care? About how his cars had an $1,100 premium attached to them for the health insurance of his workers? About how his competitors didn’t have that burden? About how he pays more for health insurance than he does for steel?
Posted by scott on February 13, 2008 at 1619 hrs
I agree with unrestricted capitalism being bad. I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. I meant that in general, I am for less restriction rather than more. One could just as easily say that taking away some of the barriers to the free market would ease the healthcare burden as well with credible sources (though not the majority) to back it up. I think the majority of experts side with you that from our current position, some form of universal healthcare is the best way to go for the US.
I’ll tell you something that I will probably never write again… my most guilty belief is that we shouldn’t be trying to keep people alive past a certain quality of life. Especially if it is against their will. The rationing that seems to be prevalent among the European community is a good thing in my opinion and a positive argument for universal health. I have never felt great about it, but I know that I would much rather die 6 months earlier than I could have than be a burden, emotionally or financially on my loved ones.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2008 at 0819 hrs
Oh BTW, the first thing I would abolish if I were dictator would be the current unions. A Government agency can monitor conditions, the union requirements for healthcare are the biggest impediment in our system. The UAW, for instance, has required health benefits equal to our beloved Goverment officials and teachers UNION. The Government gets to use as much money as they want because they can just take more. Privately owned businesses cannot compete with that, but must try because the Government supports the unions. Let them offer benefits that any other private company can offer and lo and behold, there would still be workers and at more affordable rates. Any UAW worker makes more than you and me because of it. I don’t feel like the huge majority of those people are smarter or better than you or I, they are just Government funded/supported.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2008 at 0828 hrs
I don’t know of a single case of private health insurance system covering all or most citizens at low cost. I can, however, think of dozens of countries where public insurance systems do exactly that. I just don’t know why we’re having this huge ideological debate over the proper role of government when the evidence in this particular case is like an enormous elephant in a very small room. I feel like we’re arguing about the chemistry of combustion while watching our house burn down.
Unions are not the problem. Companies with non-union employees are getting crushed by health insurance costs, too. Doing away with union-negotiated health insurance benefits would be rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Nothing more.
Posted by scott on February 14, 2008 at 0924 hrs
The main ideological problem that I believe you and I have is that you trust the US Government with tons of cash and I do not. Let’s go forward for a moment with univeral healthcare in the US. You think it will all work out great because Guv will take care of it in a reasonably efficient manner because it worked on smaller scales in Europe, many of which have decent to excellent coverage, some who don’t.
I think that the size of our country and the size of our Government will work against us and we will get something more akin to Healthy Wisconsin that will cost us taxpayers more. Great! Corps pay no more insurance… do they give any of us a raise commensurate with the savings? Heh. So who pays the difference…taxpayers. You say it is cheaper, but the coverage offered in Healthy Wisconsin would have cost me about $116.00 more each month. I understand that it would not be that way for everyone, but dammit, I don’t have enough money to pay for that kind of loss. I have bought 12-16 year old cars for 20 years, because I never felt like I could afford the car payment. We can’t afford dish or cable so we get 9 crumby channels two of which often switch to Spanish (channel 12) or descriptions for the blind (channel 4 I think). I don’t think the average Joe will see a savings. We have too many expensive lobbies (Insurance, AMA, Pharmaceutical) that would add to the final bill to the point that it won’t be anything like the healthy animal that are the bulk of the European healthcare systems.I do hope you are right, because I think that is the way we are headed, I just don’t believe it. I think the ‘enormous elephant’ is the Government and the very small room is average Joe’s house.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2008 at 1032 hrs
Let’s start with a few points of agreement:
1. Our system results in too many uninsured people who don’t get the care they should.
2. Our system costs a lot more than the others.
3. Many of these other systems are efficient and have good quality.
If I can assume we are indeed in agreement on those points, let me see if I can pinpoint the disagreement.
A) You believe somehow that it is the size of our federal government (or of our country?) which will prevent european/canadian systems from working efficiently here. Do you have any concrete reasons to believe this?
B) You believe that when businesses no longer have to pay their ~ 80% share of our health insurance, we the employees will not reap much of the gain in raises and increased benefits. Do you have any concrete reason to believe this?
Anyway, I do agree that we’re headed—one way or another—for universal insurance. Contrary to what opponents would have you believe, however, a Medicare-for-all system isn’t “socialized medicine,” nor is it a “government takeover of the health care system.”
I’ll tell you one thing I’m concerned about, though: the interim steps between here and the end goal. I fear there’s going to be a lot of friction, mainly due to the fact that political realties prevent a quick jump to the goal. That friction will be used to slow the process even further, which could lead to a feedback system: half-assed reforms will lead to dissatisfaction which will lead to half-assing it even more which will lead to more dissatisfaction, etc., etc. ad infinitum.
Posted by scott on February 14, 2008 at 1117 hrs
A) No… just the generalization that with one exception in the European community, the best quality vs. costs line up generally along population size and diversity. The least effective nations are the ones of higher diversity (and size). That may be a coincidence, but I don’t think so and the US is very diverse.
B) No but… when have corporations unilaterally been given ‘profits’ and immediately turned around and given it as a permanent raise to their employees outside of admin? A bonus for a year or two, perhaps, but without a mandate from the Government I believe the majority of corps will pass it off against any raise in corporate income tax without anyone ever really finding out how much of a difference there was. That profit will make the rich richer, no doubt in my mind. Virtually none of it will come to people making under 50-60k outside of a few cool anecdotal companies that everyone will wish was their employer.
Your last paragraph sums up many of my concerns rather well. Because of the friction there will be many avenues for pork and lobby influence and if a plan is dribbled out a bit at a time, we will still be paying full price for our old insurance at the same time as our ‘new plan’. And, of course, no Government official will feel any pains, because theirs will stay paid in full at all times so what’s the hurry?
If most of my (your)fears/concerns were adequately addressed the idea that healthcare would be publicly funded in and of itself does not offend me. I just can’t imagine it any better than public schooling. Huge overhead, static pay that causes average performance at best, mediocre coverage that breaks down further and further as time goes on just like public schools and for the same reasons, and a daily demand for more money.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2008 at 1239 hrs
Oh, and another non-concrete reason: I think the public school system is an excellent comparison in more than one sense. We pay more per capita on our students than the rest of the world, ours are public, theirs are public, why are we sliding so badly compared to other nations?
All I am really trying to say with that is that the larger scale a project of this sort is and the more diverse the demographical needs of the populace, the less efficient a ‘one size fits all’ plan is.
The successful large population countries are countries with histories of… conformity?, following orders?, (I can’t think of the term I want here) like Germany, Japan, and China. All three countries have histories of racial purity and nationalism that are present even today(one demographic, no matter the population size is much more likely to be appeased and/or made happy in the same way). The US has been successful in the past from a totally different direction and make-up. What works in other places may work diffrently here.
If we could clean up the high cost for bad education (not advocating any specific plan here), my faith could be restored enough in Government to actually want public health care.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2008 at 1300 hrs
Total Entries: 20002
Total Comments: 134062
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 07:41 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 08:20 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 113
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 08:59 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).