As a pro-lifer, I find Stupak's (D-MI) sellout, deciding to support the corrupt Senate health care "reform" bill, to a President in exchange for an executive order, whom promised while a candidate to make his first priority passage of the radically pro-abortion choice Freedom of Choice Act, is fundamentally unacceptable. An executive order has no precedence over legislation, can be rescinded, and doesn't extend beyond the current resident in the White House. (Recall the existing reconciliation bill will fund for 10 years.)
Sunday Talk Soup
Anyone who watched ABC This Week caught a brilliant articulation of the conservative response from interview guest Karl Rove and George Will during the roundtable. Karl Rove was paired off against Obama campaign manager/political advisor David Plouffe; Rove was the Energizer Bunny, taking no prisoners and thoroughly demolished Plouffe's predictable talking points. For those of us used to conservatives' respectful tolerance of one-sided boorish, constant polemical rants and interruptions by the likes of overrated progressive ideologues like Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL), it was about time. If the Rove-Plouffe debate was a professional boxing match, Rove would have won with a TKO in the first round. Rove did not rely on progressive tactics like creating caricatures of conservative ideas or presumptuous assumptions over conservative motives, but very specific, indisputable facts and numbers (e.g., Obama had only two discussions including Republicans, both AFTER the Senate bill was passed, and those occasions--a House Republican retreat and a so-called summit meeting--were primarily photo ops where the President was openly combative).
FNC Bret Baier's Wednesday Interview with Obama
Bret Baier has received a lot of criticism for cutting Obama's filibustering of questions so, in effect, he could run out the limited clock, rambling on with his ad nauseam repetition of the same old same old talking points and political spin on health care reform, refusing to be tied down to concise direct answers to questions. Baier was quickly frustrated. I saw the interview in question; I do believe that Baier did not have the wide deference that many interviewers give the President to talk himself out on his talking points without interruption, but this was not the case where (using a football analogy) Baier was tackling Obama before he had a chance to make a fair catch on the punt. Obama was attempting to manipulate the nature and tempo of the interview; that was presumptuous and one-sided. An interview is a two-way street; Baier was not keeping Obama from giving a response--he was trying to keep from Obama from using the interview to promote his political agenda.
Responses to Certain Health Care Talking Points
- The Republicans are hypocritical because we are just trying to do what is going on in Massachusetts. In fact, the Massachusetts program has blown past budget and is heavily dependent on federal expenditures for solvency. I do think that Massachusetts GOP politicians Mitt Romney and Scott Brown need to explain their support for health insurance mandates and why we did not see more action paring down supplemental benefit mandates or policies, which make health insurance rates among the highest in the nation; their discussions to date have focused more on their role in keeping government out of micromanaging the private sector. (See the interview with Democrat-turned-independent gubernatorial candidate, Massachusetts State Treasurer Tim Cahill, whm has been critical of Governor Patrick and President Obama on health care, on Fox News or the Boston Herald post last week.)
- The private sector insurance sector applies health care rationing, not the federal government. In an often-cited The Hill post, Medicare has denied almost 7% of claims (versus under 5% for most insurers) and had an average response turnaround of two weeks for Medicare versus roughly 10 days for the private sector. Keep in mind that the progressives have been selling increased federal involvement based on the unchecked assumption that the federal government is "more efficient" than the private sector in terms of administrative costs and other factors. In fact, the government doesn't negotiate payments, which is considerable overhead: it dictates reimbursement rates. In many cases, the government has not have the same cost drivers (e.g., marketing expenses, provider qualification, fraud prevention, etc.)
- Individual characteristics and timing of insurance coverage are not legitimate factors for health insurance pricing. There have been ideological differences, saying, for example, that if women's health care expenses exceed men's expenses on average, it is "discriminatory" to charge women based on the differences of those costs. In other words, certain feminist groups assert primacy of premium equality over the principles of risk assessment, which is wholly an ideological argument. It's like arguing that everyone should pay the same price at a restaurant, no matter what dishes and how much they order. If, for whatever reason, men assume lower expenses for whatever statistically valid combination of reasons (e.g., shorter lives or pregnancy-related expenses), they should be charged accordingly. The issue of same-day coverage, for instance, allows people to effectively wait until they face a financial crisis to dump their expenses at the expense of other policyholders. This makes no more sense than allowing homeowners at the last minute to purchase flood insurance given threatening weather conditions. In addition, you cannot force businesses to accept business that forces them to lose money from the get-go. The question is not so much whether people with preexisting conditions should be subsidized, but how to do it fairly, e.g., one insurer writes 40% of the premiums in a state but gets 60% of the high risk patients.
- The "Crisis" of 31 Million Uninsured. First of all, many people want to pay for health services using a traditional fee-for-service arrangement. Second, part of the existing problem of coverage is an artifact of the economic environment and results from problems of public policy, e.g., tax advantages linked to employment and the number of costly benefit mandates. Third, hospitals are prohibited from denying emergency care based on ability to pay. I think there are ways to improve the situation, e.g., cost recovery from uninsured people after treatment (e.g., loans from the federal government in the event of no insurance, subject to repayment).
- The health care bill REDUCES the deficit. Flatly not true in the sense it INCREASES the debt. (I also expect that taxes are overestimated and costs are understated.) You are adding medical products and services being subsidized by the federal government. These are real costs. There are inflows, i.e., taxes on job creators (high-income workers), penalties on businesses and individuals on insurance mandates, Cadillac health care surtaxes, etc. By any objective measure, these fees, penalties, etc., even disregarding the negative effects on business and federal revenues, will not pay for these outflows. How is the rest financed? Basically, federal debt. Ambitious Medicare cuts which have never happened in the past are being proclaimed--but these, if they exist, should be used to shore up an unfunded $38T mandate, not subsidizing health care insurance for other people. The fact is that the Democrats are engaging in smoke and mirrors, arguing that they are lowering the deficit, but it's debt--whether it's intergovernmental funds or public debt.
Steve Green points out the consequences of following the Pied Piper of Failed Liberalism and the leader of his Congressional brigade, Speaker Pelosi.
Quote of the Day
There is no worse tyranny than that of a majority. The test of democracy is not that the majority should always get its way but how far minorities are respected.
John Stuart Mill
Musical Interlude: Love Is Blue (I love this song)
Vicky Leandros, "L'Amour Est Bleu"
(original artist and my favorite performance; very cute girl)
Vicky Leandros, "Love Is Blue"
Claudine Longet, "L'Amour Est Bleu" (spoken English interlude)
Paul Mauriat, "Love is Blue" #1 instrumental, 1968
L'amour est bleu
| L'amour est bleu Doux, doux, l'amour est doux Douce est ma vie, ma vie dans tes bras Doux, doux, l'amour est doux Douce est ma vie, ma vie près de toi Bleu, bleu, l'amour est bleu Berce mon cœur, mon cœur amoureux Bleu, bleu, l'amour est bleu Bleu comme le ciel qui joue dans tes yeux Comme l'eau, comme l'eau qui court Moi, mon cœur court après ton amour Gris, gris, l'amour est gris Pleure mon cœur lorsque tu t'en vas Gris, gris, le ciel est gris Tombe la pluie quand tu n'es plus là Le vent, le vent gémit Pleure le vent lorsque tu t'en vas Le vent, le vent maudit Pleure mon cœur quand tu n'es plus là Comme l'eau, comme l'eau qui court Moi, mon cœur court après ton amour Bleu, bleu, l'amour est bleu Le ciel est bleu lorsque tu reviens Bleu, bleu, l'amour est bleu L'amour est bleu quand tu prends ma main Fou, fou, l'amour est fou Fou comme toi et fou comme moi Bleu, bleu, l'amour est bleu L'amour est bleu quand je suis à toi L'amour est bleu quand je suis à toi |
Love is blue
Soft, soft, love is soft
Soft is my life, my life in your arms
Soft, soft, love is soft
Soft is my life, my life next to you
Blue, blue, love is blue
Cradle my heart, my loving heart
Blue, blue, love is blue
Blue like the sky which play in your eyes
Like the water, like the running water
Me, my heart runs after your love
Grey, grey, love is grey
My heart weeps since you went away
Grey, grey, the sky is grey
The rain falls when you're not there anymore
The wind, the wind moans
The wind weeps since you went away
The wind, the cursed wind
My heart weeps when you're not there anymore
Like the water, like the running water
Me, my heart runs after your love
Blue, blue, love is blue
The sky is blue when you return
Blue, blue, love is blue
Love is blue when you take my hand
Mad, mad, love is mad
Mad like you and mad like me
Blue, blue, love is blue
Love is blue when I am yours
Love is blue when I am yours
Translation by Tamar Lichtman
