One moment immediately stuck out at me, which had more to do with style than substance. The legislators stuck with normal deference to each other and the President, but Obama kept referring to the legislators by their first name and frequently came across to me as condescending, dismissive and judgmental.
Obama picked a fight with Senator Alexander (TN-R) over a claim Alexander made about the CBO numbers being higher on individual coverage plans under the Democratic plan than under current law; Alexander was technically correct (although Obama doesn't consider the market price relevant since government subsidies mitigate the increase). Obama also accused Representative Cantor (VA-R) of pulling an unproductive stunt by bringing a copy of the Democrats' 2000-page plus bill with him; this was "the pot calling the kettle black" because the very concept of the health summit was a political gimmick from the get-go. And when Senator McCain reminded him of Obama's vows of transparency over the course of the 2008 general election campaign, Obama scolded McCain to get over the campaign, that the election was old nows.
In a certain manner, we knew this was a staged event; if the Democrats were seriously interested in negotiating with the Republicans, they would have done so in Senate offices or conference rooms. I mean, if Senate Majority Reid was making deals behind closed doors for Gator-Aid, the Louisiana Purchase, and the Cornhusker Kickback over a number of weeks with his fellow Democrats, does anyone seriously believe that the GOP legislators were going to throw support the same old same old measure in exchange for some changes enabling interstate marketing of health insurance, medical malpractice tort reform, and certain small business group cooperatives with self-insurance and a minimal list of required mandates.
However, Obama and his fellow Democrats weren't interested in letting the market (versus the government) decide what constitutes basic health insurance. Obama repeated the same nonsense over CBO estimates marginalizing the effect of medical malpractice tort reform, and you had the typical knee-jerk response to interstate marketing of insurance as a so-called "race to the bottom". (In other words, the way you get to cheaper health insurance coverage is to minimize the number of market mandates.) To me, the so-called "race to the bottom" is an inherent check on state-based regulatory corruption, where special interest groups get certain mandates implemented. I might be willing to pay my fair share of someone's appendectomy but not for their in vitro fertilization treatment.
The Democrats responded that they have already responded to some of the GOP's ideas, saying their proposal expands state high risk pools, creates high-deductible policies for young people (i.e., lower cost in response to mandates), and addresses fraud. [The fact that they say these things, of course, contradict their partisan claims of the Republicans as the "party of no" and "no new ideas", something, of course, the liberal mass media fails to acknowledge.] Obama was quickly dismissive of the idea of catastrophic insurance and health savings accounts with Sen. Barrasso (WY-R), saying they weren't answers for the average American.
The bottom line is that however these concepts are getting implemented, Obama and the other Democrats are insisting only the federal government and its contrived market exchange--not the state governments, which have traditionally regulated health insurance, or the private sector--can resolve the matter. I am getting so tired of their frivolous arguments. Take, for instance, the issue of bankruptcy. Medical debts dismissed in court through bankruptcy proceedings mean that those charges ultimately get charged back through charges for ongoing health care services. I would prefer to open the transparency of the system, with explicit catastrophic insurance, reserves, etc. rather through hidden charges wrapped up in premium payments.or service reimbursements. The same thing holds true of Medicare and/or insurance fraud.
It is a matter of principle, and I do wish both sides would stop this nonsense about these cutting costs. Even if we get some initial boosts in terms of digitizing health care records or improving fraud detection, we are facing some intrinsic trends strongly correlated with higher health care costs, i.e., an aging population. What we do have, though, is a system where many policyholders regard health care insurance as a "free good"; they can ask for dubious name-brand prescriptions and various medical tests, they can and do unnecessarily make use of doctors and more expensive health care facilities. Obama and the Democrats want to minimize any out-of-pocket policyholder costs associated with health care, but without a vested consumer interest in lower costs, these consumers will, if anything, use MORE medical services under the Democratic approach.
I think the Republicans could have a better job articulating a more cohesive (versus piecemeal) vision, building on and reforming traditional state regulation (including the strengthening of high risk groups) and traditional economic liberty (e.g., choosing how to transact with doctors or to organize benefit groups across states). They could have been focused on the fact that insurers seem to be caught in a vicious cycle of cherrypicking the best risks; one of the ways that the federal government can facilitate this is to become the reinsurer of last resort and to spread the costs of catastrophic costs across the US population. I also expected that SOMEBODY would have dared the Democrats to push up benefits to when new taxes/cuts take effect, which would further expose Democratic voodoo economics on health care reform.
The summit was fairly predictable, although I think it somewhat backfired on Obama. The way I read this game of chess, Obama had already made the decision to go forward with health reform. I think what he wanted to do was to provide a high-profile event with the Republicans, hoping to show they weren't constructive partners, unwilling to negotiate in good faith. Or perhaps he kept a couple of cards hidden in this hand (say, for instance, tort reform) so he could come out of the summit, put those cards on the table, and then dare the Republicans to oppose their own cherrypicked proposals.
The way it backfired on Obama is the fact that the Republicans came to the summit and showed they were highly articulate and respectful, while politely disagreeing, on health care reform. It was the Democrats whom revealed to the national audience the exact manner in which Republicans have not been included in the process, one of the worst offenders being the President himself, whom dismissed ideas like catastrophic insurance with prejudice and made it clear he would decide whether or not and what Republican ideas would be included in the final package. That's not negotiation, only Obama's arbitrary judgment.
Already we are hearing of a new Presidential proposal coming next week, and Obama hints at forcing the bill through reconciliation, and the Democrats are implying new votes around Easter. It's possible that Obama is trying to use the threat of reconciliation to force more concessions and votes from the GOP.
We cannot have another year-long debate about this. So the question that I'm going to ask myself and I ask of all of you is, is there enough serious effort that in a month's time or a few weeks' time or six weeks' time we could actually resolve something? And if we can't, then I think we've got to go ahead and make some decisions, and then that's what elections are for.As for Obama and the Democrats arguing that a year is long enough, no, it's not, when we're talking about radical changes to 17% of the economy. And it's still clear that there is no consensus among the Democrats themselves (i.e., the House versus the Senate Democrats). And even if you argue the Democrats have spent a year trying to come up with their own bill, it wasn't with Republican inputs on critical decisions, and if all you have is a bill which barely passed the Senate even with corrupt deals, there is no reason to throw good money after bad when polls after polls show the bill is unpopular. The Democrats try to counter that if you raise the IDEALS (e.g., disallowing filtering on preexisting conditions), these sound good on paper. When you explain to people, however, that means their own rates go up as others try to game the system by avoiding applying for a policy until they actually get sick, that's a problem. [I realize that the Democrats will argue that mandates and/or fines deal with that issue, but there is a serious constitutional issue here. The fundamental problem is finding a fair way to distribute the costs of high risks across all insurers and to limit catastrophic expenses which could bankrupt an insurer.] The proof is in the pudding, and the Democrats have cooked a rancid pudding.
I would like to see McCain or some other bipartisan senators (including Lieberman, Landrieu, Lincoln, Byrd, Nelson, and others), band together to block the use of reconciliation for major policy issues.
The Republicans seem to be somewhat amused and baffled that the Democrats, even after Scott Brown's victory last month, seemed determined to vote through a highly unpopular bill--give the Democrats all the rope they need to hang themselves this fall.
Hillary Clinton Slams Former Fed Chairman Greenspan: Right Guy, Wrong Reasons
Well, it shouldn't surprise us that Hillary Clinton is holding Greenspan responsible for irresponsible budget deficits and trade deficits with large Treasury positions held by China, oil exporters, and Russia, noting that Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003 and Greenspan was supportive of Bush's tax cuts and calls for American spending.
OK, as Dr. Phil McGraw would say, let's get real. In the aftermath of 9/11, with the economy already suffering from the Nasdaq bubble/stock market crash, people were almost paranoid to leave their homes and to spend. Keep in mind some 70% of our economy is based on consumer spending. There was talk back then of a possible global depression. We were also running a budgetary surplus during that period; Bush pushed for tax cuts, designed to stimulate consumer demand and business growth.
The real story was Democratic policies that directly facilitated the subsequent real estate bubble, not to mention the Democrats' chief argument at the time was not that the Republicans were spending too much, but that they were spending too little. And what party has been responsible for restrictive policies against domestic oil and gas exploration?
Political Cartoon
Dick Locher implies that Barack Obama is gambling the nation's future on the taxpayer being able to make it around the track with all the extra weight of Democratic Party hyper-deficit spending on his back. (I personally think the only jockey whom will ride this horse is the headless horseman; he must be brainless to believe disingenuous Democratic spin that adding more patients to a full-capacity medical care system will actually shrink the federal deficit.)
Musical Interlude: Eye Songs
Art Garfunkel, "Bright Eyes"
Frankie Valli, "My Eyes Adored You"
Elton John, "Blue Eyes"
Peter Gabriel, "In Your Eyes"
Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons, "Can't Take My Eyes Off of You"
