Moderate Democratic Senators McCaskill, Nelson, and Lieberman on the Sunday talk shows expressed some caution about the Medicare expansion quid pro quo in place of the public option. There was a lot of lip service to CBO cost estimates, discussion of Medicare "cost savings" paying for the federal health care expansion bill, but let's talk about the elephant in the room (no, of course I'm not talking about the GOP--Reid has not allowed them in the back room at all). First, any federal expansion in health care will increase aggregate costs; even if you manage some process reforms to mitigate certain costs, federal costs correlate with the number of insured, and the newly insured will use medical products and services not already factored into the status quo. Second, it is highly probable that any policyholders added to a government plan will require subsidies, i.e., the ones most likely attracted to a public plan would be motivated by socializing their own risk-based cost burden. Third, there is only so far the government can shift its cost burden at the expense of doctors and hospitals, which have to subsidize the care of their below-cost federal program patients through other business (i.e., through private-sector insurance programs and patient reimbursements).
You would think some Democratic senators would be out there talking about the folly of increasing the Medicare program at the same time the program already has about $36T in unfunded mandates... But then what can you say about the Democrats putting a higher priority on expanding the insured population than addressing the far more salient Medicare funding crisis, which is already on their plate? Why doesn't any Democrat question why we need universal health insurance, but not universal life insurance, auto insurance, property insurance, etc.? Why doesn't any Democrat question why we are discussing government-run health plans, but not government-run supermarkets to promote "price competition"? What do you say when any and all Democratic alternatives to date refuse to look at the fundamental problems underlying within-state health insurance competition (e.g., barriers to entry) but instead make a conceptual leap to a government-run solution? Doesn't this really reflect a fundamental lack of confidence by Democrats in the free market system?
There are all sorts of unintended consequences once the federal government lowers the eligibility age for Medicare; for example, businesses might simply dump the health care plans for their older workers onto the federal government. or older workers may find few private-sector providers whom can or will compete with below-cost government premiums.
I'm hopeful that the Democrats will reconsider a conservative idea of high risk pools, with guaranteed acceptance and program costs are partially subsidized on an equitable basic (e.g., a value-added tax across state/regional premiums and/or state/regional tax revenues). I would also be open to seeing other creative solutions offered--say, for example, permanent eligibility for enrollment in former employer COBRA programs (with cost incentives for retaining continuous coverage).
The good news is that some of the 60 Democratic/independent senators see the political risk inherent in ignoring public anxiety over whether reforms will affect their own policies (despite Obama's lip service otherwise) and mounting concerns over an escalating national debt--and climbing interest payments which crowd out other federal spending. Without any meaningful GOP support, the Democrats will pay an unambiguous political price for any taxpayer dissatisfaction with whatever emerges--e.g., costs far above budget, which has repeatedly happened at the state level.
Congressional Obsession with Organized Sports
George Will wrote a column Sunday titled "Congress Out of It League on BCS". He takes on Republican Congressman Joe Barton's attempt to intervene in the existing college football playoff system. He notes how the BCS system was almost thrown into chaos when unbeaten Texas came within a second of losing; Alabama would have likely be facing one of 3 second-tier, unbeaten teams.
[As a UT alumnus, I watched the game in stunned disbelief as Texas, 2 points behind with the ball on the Nebraska 29 yard line (i.e., within winning field goal range), had quarterback Colt McCoy scrambling on the ground with final seconds ticking off the clock. (I blame both the coach and the quarterback for an inexcusable mental lapse that almost cost them the game. My only guess is that they wanted to minimize any possibility of a possible Nebraska counter-score (unlikely given Nebraska's offensive and special-team performance throughout the contest) and McCoy thought he had more time than he did.)
(I myself never played high school football (and as a result found myself blackballed from the National Honor Society by the football coaches until just before graduation). Let's just say the football coach respected the way in PE that I, playing defense deep instead of on the line as usual (I was trying to catch my breath), unintentionally was party to one of the most violent collisions ever in the history of flag or touch football (if not football in general), which resulted in my landing on my wrist, spraining it, and the other guy knocked out cold. The coach subsequently pressured me to go out for football, but I lacked the size or speed to land a college football scholarship and couldn't afford give up my only college savings income, newspaper delivery. For people who have never been to Texas, Texas high school football is an integral part of the culture, and not taking advantage of an opportunity to join the high school football team is the ultimate sacrilege.)
I am not a football expert, but I would have probably would have set up for the field goal on the disputed play, as a hedge against a fumbled snap. By any other objective standard, Texas outplayed Nebraska, which gained only 106 yards the whole game, managed just 5 first downs, and kicked 4 field goals. (Well, hats off to Nebraska defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh, whom repeatedly shredded the Texas offensive line and sacked McCoy 4.5 times.)]
I understand, in terms of the culture, why Barton might be motivated to intervene on behalf of football fans, but I have to say I am not a fan of politicians getting involved in organized sports of any kind; George Will's piece doesn't talk about one of his own passions, major league baseball, or other sports/entertainment, but, for example, I believed that the steroids controversy in baseball and pro wrestling entertainment was more about political grandstanding than substance. (I certainly discourage steroid usage; I don't believe in substitutions for hard work and discipline, including exercising to build or tone one's muscles.) I also think that Jimmy Carter's using the 1980 Moscow Olympics as a political response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a mistake; the only thing it accomplished was deprive hard-training American athletes of perhaps their only opportunity to earn a coveted Olympic medal.
We have several pressing problems: persistent energy, budget and trade deficits, entitlement solvency, the falling dollar, increasingly unmanageable federal government with redundancy and inadequate inter-agency coordination, modern threats to our national defense, etc. Does the Congress really need to micromanage professional and collegiate sports? College football and other organized sports have their own incentives to ensure they adopt a championship process respected by their participants and fans
Political Cartoon
Gary Varvel reminds us that the national debt is out of sight, with Democratic pie in the sky government program cost estimates, ivory tower economic projections, and space cadet political leadership.
Christmas Musical Interlude: Kelly Clarkson's "My Grown-Up Christmas List"
The first and most commercially-successful American Idol winner remakes the song introduced by Natalie Cole and popularized by other artists as well (e.g., Amy Grant).
