For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
The GOP ‘Stalinists’ and Dede Scozzafava
Written By : John Hawkins

It’s hard to feel sorry for the Democrats. They have an absolute lock on the White House, the House, and the Senate. That means that they can pass any legislation they want and the Republicans can’t do a thing to stop them. Moreover, they’ve convinced themselves that they’re the future and the GOP is the past. After all, the conventional wisdom on the Left (and amongst many RINOS) is that the Republicans are nothing but a tiny “rump party,” consisting of a few diehard wackos who are guaranteed to go the way of the dinosaur. The “old America?” Ronald Reagan’s America? Flag waving America? Pull yourself up by the bootstraps America? That’s as dead as the Dodo because liberals have won the argument. Now, what Americans really want is a huge, overweening, socialistic government that features liberals telling everyone how to live — and Republicans? Their only hope is to get on board, move to the middle, or be run over by an electoral steamroller that they can’t hope to stop.

Enticing though this vision may be to liberals, there’s a big problem with it: It’s called reality. Democrats didn’t get into power because the country was hungry for liberalism. They got into power because politics tends to be cyclical in this country and Americans were sick and tired of the corruption, incompetence, and arrogance of the Republican Party.

By the time the 2008 election rolled around, George Bush had an approval rating in the neighborhood of 25%. The Republican candidate, John McCain? He was too old, too soft, too unpopular with his base, and surprisingly, given his military background, he lacked the political courage to go after Obama. Still, even with a Republican President who polled like Nixon, a weak nominee, and a disgusted base, the GOP managed to pull 46% of the vote. Moreover, since then, the American people have had an extremely negative reaction to the liberal agenda that has been championed by the Democratic Party. According to Rasmussen polling, Republicans are now more trusted than Democrats on every key issue.

That brings us, in a roundabout fashion, to the special election in New York’s 23rd congressional district. Initially it featured Daily Kos endorsed liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava going toe-to-toe with Democrat Bill Owens and Conservative Party nominee, Doug Hoffman in an odd duck of a race. Despite that fact that this was New York, Scozzafava, who was selected in a back room, was too liberal for the district, Hoffman was charisma free, and Owens wasn’t setting the world on fire either.

However, when the NRCC and RNC chose to use conservative money to sandbag a conservative candidate in an effort to help a liberal Republican, it turned a fairly obscure special election into a hot national race.

At some point, you’d think the Republican establishment would learn their lesson about interfering in races like this. They jumped into the Arlen Specter vs. Pat Toomey 2004 race. Specter won, but eventually changed parties. They interfered in the Lincoln Chafee vs. Stephen Laffey primary. Laffey lost the primary, but Chafee then lost the general election and changed parties. Then, there was this year’s NRSC endorsement of Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio. In all likelihood, the only drama left there is whether Crist will change parties and endorse the Democratic candidate after the grassroots powers Rubio to victory over the NRSC’s handpicked Arlen Specter clone.

There has been a lot of talk about “purges” and whether “moderates” have a place in the Republican Party, but that certainly doesn’t capture the spirit of what happened in NY-23. Despite the fact that conservatives provide most of the money, votes, manpower, and intellectual firepower in the Republican party, the Party establishment chose to spend $900,000 to try to help a left-of-center Republican defeat a conservative in a Republican “gimmie district”. After it became apparent that wasn’t going to work, the left-of-center Republican dropped out and endorsed the Democrat. When you look at the whole picture, what you see was an attempt to purge a conservative candidate, not vice-versa.

Of course, that’s certainly not the impression you’d get from reading Frank Rich’s latest column, The G.O.P. Stalinists Invade Upstate New York. Now given that Frank Rich would probably agree with about 90% of Stalin’s policy positions, you might think that this would be a positive column. Unfortunately, that’s not the case:

The right’s embrace of Hoffman is a double-barreled suicide for the G.O.P. On Saturday, the battered Scozzafava suspended her campaign, further scrambling the race. It’s still conceivable that the Democratic candidate could capture a seat the Republicans should own. But it’s even better for Democrats if Hoffman wins. Punch-drunk with this triumph, the right will redouble its support of primary challengers to 2010 G.O.P. candidates they regard as impure. That’s bad news for even a Republican as conservative as Kay Bailey Hutchison, whose primary opponent in the Texas governor’s race, the incumbent Rick Perry, floated the possibility of secession at a teabagger rally in April and hastily endorsed Hoffman on Thursday.

The more rightists who win G.O.P. primaries, the greater the Democrats’ prospects next year. But the electoral math is less interesting than the pathology of this movement. Its antecedent can be found in the early 1960s, when radical-right hysteria carried some of the same traits we’re seeing now: seething rage, fear of minorities, maniacal contempt for government, and a Freudian tendency to mimic the excesses of political foes. Writing in 1964 of that era’s equivalent to today’s tea party cells, the historian Richard Hofstadter observed that the John Birch Society’s “ruthless prosecution” of its own ideological war often mimicked the tactics of its Communist enemies.

…That America was lost years ago, and no national political party can thrive if it lives in denial of that truth. The right still may want to believe, as Palin said during the campaign, that Alaska, with its small black and Hispanic populations, is a “microcosm of America.” (New York’s 23rd also has few blacks or Hispanics.) But most Americans like their country’s 21st-century profile.

That changing complexion is part of why the McCain-Palin ticket lost every demographic group by large margins in 2008 except white senior citizens and the dwindling fifth of America that’s still rural. It’s also why the G.O.P. has been in a nosedive since the inauguration, whatever Obama’s ups and downs. In the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll, only 17 percent of Americans identify themselves as Republicans (as opposed to 30 percent for the Democrats, and 44 for independents).

…Only in the alternative universe of the far right is Obama a pariah and Palin the great white hope. It’s become a Beltway truism that the White House’s (mild) spat with Fox News is counterproductive because it drives up the network’s numbers. But if curious moderate and independent voters are now tempted to surf there and encounter Beck’s histrionics for the first time, the president’s numbers will benefit as well. To the uninitiated, the tea party crowd comes across like the barflies in “Star Wars.”

Speaking of “denial of…truth,” in Frank Rich’s world, liberalism is ascendant and conservatism has been put down like a dog, never to rise again. That’s why he errantly believes conservatives were foolish to choose to back a conservative candidate over a Democrat and a Republican who might as well be a Democrat. That win-win situation for a liberal like Rich was a lose-lose situation for conservatives and wisely, we did something about it.

Is this the beginning of a Stalinesque purge? Well, only if you consider a more successful repeat of the challenge that cost Joe Lieberman a primary election to be a trip to the political gulag. Moderates are welcome in the Republican Party — but, as long as conservatives are paying the piper, we’re also going to call the tune.

We’re not going to insist on perfect ideological purity, but we are going to insist that Republican candidates act more like Republicans than Democrats. We’re also not going to stand for conservative candidates being shoved aside in the name of “party loyalty.” Furthermore, we’re going to insist on politicians being accountable to the people who put them in office.

In 2010, liberals like Frank Rich, Republican moderates who claim that conservatism is dead, and the Democratic talking heads are all going to get a rude surprise when the GOP starts its comeback at the ballot box because it moved back to the Right. However, our job as conservatives is not just to put Republicans in office, it’s to make sure that the politicians we send to DC are doing the job we’re sending them there to do. We failed on that count during the Bush era and after the disaster that the Obama administration is turning into, we can’t afford to let our next opportunity pass slip away.

0
  • http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

    If Hoffman wins, Sarah Palin will deserve the lions share of the credit, as the Republican Party really dropped the ball in their support for a Democrat like Scozzafava. She takes $900,000+ from the Republicans and then endorses a DEMOCRAT?

  • gfchicago

    Wonder how much the Obama Administration promised to give Dede if she would back Owens?

  • wylie_e_coyote

    We need to let these crooks know they WILL NOT be allowed to steal our Liberty. Here is a great OP-ED piece by Rep Shadegg about how the Obamacare creeps have colluded with the Health Insurance lobby to force the Unconstitutional Individual Mandate down our throats:

    http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWVj

    Key Quote:

    "To give you some perspective, two weeks after Barack Obama was elected president, the country’s largest health insurance trade association, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), came out in support of forcing all Americans to purchase health insurance (the individual mandate). In exchange for the promise of millions of new enrollees, some of the country’s biggest insurers agreed to the Democrats’ proposed regulation of their industry. Rather than fight the party with complete control of Washington, insurance companies understand that supporting the Democrats’ takeover will prove to be quite lucrative.

    Despite the recent demonization of health-insurance companies, Nancy Pelosi, insurers and the Congressional Democrats are in near unanimous agreement when it comes to imposing their will on the American people. For example, consider the individual mandate which forces all Americans to buy a government-approved plan. Both Democrats and insurers support stiff penalties or even jail time for failure to comply with the mandate! The proof: Not a single Democrat has signed my resolution, H.Res. 796, opposing fines and jail time for the uninsured in any health-care-reform bill.

    This is a stark contrast to President Obama’s statement in 2008, when he eloquently stated on the campaign trail that an individual mandate punishes those who cannot afford insurance. Not once but twice Obama said: “[H]ere are people who are paying fines and still can't afford it, so now they're worse off than they were. They don't have health insurance, and they're paying a fine.” Unfortunately, President Obama has now flip-flopped on his opposition to an individual mandate and supports it along with the powerful insurance industry."

    This is a CORRUPT BARGIN where a big and connected lobby lines its pocket and allow the socialist/statest to nationalize health care and seize an huge amount of POWER for the Federal government!

    This cannot be allowed to stand if we are to remain a free and indpendent people!

    We must work today and vote tommorow for ALL conservative candidates in NY, CA, NJ, and VA to send the statists a LOUD message that WE THE PEOPLE are STILL SOVERIGN!

    Everyone needs to get to DC on the 4th to participate in REP Bachman's rally and continue to fax, write, call, and email in opposition to this scam!

  • smelvertising

    If Hoffman wins, Sarah Palin will deserve the lions share of the credit

    Of course not! Don't you read REAL Republicans like Allahpundit? If Hoffman wins, it means Palin is unelectable because, and if you don't agree you're a PALINBOT!!1

  • http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

    Posted by smelvertising

    2009-11-02 13:16:49

    Nixon likes Allahpundit. However, his extremem viewpoint on Palin makes Nixon wonder if he got turned down by Cuda over a interview or something.

  • http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

    The public is turning against the entire party system. Both parties are getting a lot of opposition from their voters and I think its a damn good thing.

  • http://conservativebootcamp.com martinhale

    The public is turning against the entire party system. Both parties are getting a lot of opposition from their voters and I think its a damn good thing.

    Posted by Christopher_Taylor

    2009-11-02 13:34:05

    I hope you're right, Mr. Taylor, I hope you're right. As a long-time independent, I would like to see a few million more of my fellow Americans dispense with the artificiality and pretense of the Demican versus Republicrat system and really start voting based on actual positions espoused by individual candidates. Let's make room for a wide-palette of parties and an even for non-affiliated candidates. Our government is, and has always been, ruled by coalitions anyway, so why not do away with all the mindless Demican v Republicrat blather and focus on selecting and electing the genuinely "best and brightest".

  • rmiller

    I know you probably hate to hear from a liberal on this thread…

    But I have to say….this is something I have advocated all along.

    Conservatives are not Republicans, and as political junkie, I am glad that conservatives are drawing a line in the sand.

    It has little to do with whether it gives Democrats hope of winning a safely Republican district. I'm more interested in whether the conservative analysis has legs.

    I know that there are Dems salivating about a Republican civil war, and that they will be the beneficiaries of such a conflict.

    I am not one of those.

    I do think that conservatives have a legitimate criticism of the Republican party. I may not agree with it, but I think conservatives are right about Republicans.

    I look forward to the civil war….but I think Dems and liberals should take no comfort. We have our own civil war coming up.

    Dems and liberals are just as conflicted…

    the fact that Reps. and conservatives are engaging in that conversation earlier than us gives them a leg up. Dems and libs should be worried.

  • aharris

    I hope you're right C_T. We need to move past this D v. R mentality where people will vote the letter despite the positions of the person wearing it. It's time for people to start remembering their civic responsibilities.

  • boatman47

    Thee are several things wrong with Mr. Hawkins' view – first, the long-established method of selecting a nominee for a mid-term election is for the Republicn county chairs in the district to pick someone. That was in fact done. Was the NRC then supposed to reject the nominee selected by the process? That's absurd – it would mean that the national party should NOT back validly selected local Republicn candidates.

    Hoffman, by the way, does not even live in the district, and – as one newspaper in the district (in Watertown) pointed out, has little knowledge of the district or the issues that voters there care about. If the Democrat is elected, it will be the fault of the Conservatives, and a seat held by Republicans for over 100 years will be lost.

    If Conservatives are ever to achieve a majority in either house of Congress, or regain the White House, this destructive civil war has to stop. Expecting moderate Repoublicans to simply cave in to your fringe right views, ignoring local political conditions, may be the route to an ideologically pure political party, but it is also the route to permanent, helpless, minority status.

  • DrEvil

    The Reps lost Congress because they were no longer the party of responsible government. But, the Dems did not deserve control of Congress. Now, the Dems have clearly demonstrated that they are not capable of governing in a responsible manner as if there was any doubt, but the Reps have yet to prove that they will be any better than the Dems.

    The two party system benefits those parties and their supporters at the expense of the nation and all Americans. it is time that we vote for responsible men and women regardless of their party affiliation and if they are not aligned with either of the two parties of encumbancy than so much the better.

    Have an Evil day.

  • http://guardian.blogdrive.com/ CavalierX

    Ahh, boatman, you crack me up. Trying to convince "fringe right" people that voting for those who actually represent opposing viewpoints to their own is somehow good for everyone, eh? Funny. When you Liberals star electing representatives who advocate for low taxes, less government controls, strong national defense, a tough international stance and more freedonm OF (as opposed to freedom from), you just let me know.

  • http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

    Expecting moderate Repoublicans to simply cave in to your fringe right views, ignoring local political conditions, may be the route to an ideologically pure political party, but it is also the route to permanent, helpless, minority status.

    Posted by boatman47

    2009-11-02 14:41:28

    You are so full of feces Nixon can smell you upwind, you f'n dufus.

  • SanChez

    Sorry boatman. Any conservative taking political advice from a dim or a lib is asking for trouble. These calls to ignore our principles are falling on deaf ears. If Hoffman wins, Scuzzy in NY might have just given the people of this nation the wakeup call they needed.

  • http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

    I believe it is a matter of time before Democrats face the same sort of opposition from their voters who are just as sick of their party being corrupt, greedy, and tired of being ignored. Tired of the gross overspending, the heeding special interests and vast, rich companies instead of voters, tired of congressmen who don't read bills and presidential candidates who promise change and deliver more of the same.

    And its all good from where I sit.

  • tblrk2006

    tired of congressmen who don't read bills

    Posted by Christopher_Taylor

    2009-11-02 16:13:07

    This is a big one here. How can you not bother to find out what you are voting for? That is some twilight zone shit right there.

  • rmiller

    How can you not bother to find out what you are voting for? That is some twilight zone shit right there.

    Posted by tblrk2006

    2009-11-02 16:56:55

    It's true…there is some twilight zone shit right there. Q: how do you know you are right?

    Especially since there is no bill yet?

  • http://conservativebootcamp.com martinhale

    "Especially since there is no bill yet?"

    So that 1990 pages of PelosiCare is just a figment of our imagination?

    C'mon Miller – that's weak – we all know that there are five health care bills and two climate bills, we know that there are sections which have been left blank, but we also know that large parts of each of those bills have already been committed to paper.

  • http://guardian.blogdrive.com/ CavalierX

    how do you know you are right?

    Are you serious? Even if it were humanly possible to read the gigantic bills these people have been passing in the short time they have to do so, you have people like John Conyers practically laughing in the faces of those who think bills should be read and understood before a vote is taken.

    "I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill.’ What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?"

    -Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)

  • Mike_M

    This may be the beginning of the "post-partisan politics" Obama promised before doling out radical leftist fascism.

    The D or R is going to be less important than in a very long time this election. The voters have been gangbanged by both parties to the tune of trillions of dollars and massive unemployment. The "Republican" has no claim to make things any better based solely on his party, and the Democrats have pissed away their mandate and majority in a spectacular orgy of incompetence and corruption. Obama is the biggest farce since James Buchanan.

    With the internet finally supplanting newspapers and TV as a primary information source, conservatives can pick up support from anywhere and have to worry less about kissing the rings of the local party bosses and newsmen.

    The GOP leadership had better be worried. So had the Dems. In the face of big government, American democracy is reasserting itself.

  • http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

    Given that the entire congress admitted they hadn't read TARP or the "stimulus" package, it isn't too much a stretch to imagine at least some of them won't read the 2000 page monstrosity health insurance takeover. Especially since several have admitted they won't.

    I wouldn't want to either, but then its not my job. They rely on staffers to read it and tell them a summary, but I wonder how much the staffers actually read and how much they rely on what they're told by others? Its a big mess. Most of these bills could be largely blank with lines like "this will be filled out later by staffers and bureaucrats" and who'd know?

  • Pingback: MIDDAY ROUNDUP | stream4.me

  • rmiller

    C'mon Miller – that's weak – we all know that there are five health care bills and two climate bills, we know that there are sections which have been left blank, but we also know that large parts of each of those bills have already been committed to paper.

    Posted by martinhale

    2009-11-02 17:47:29

    We don't know what the health care reform bill will look like until there is a reconciliation.

    You say it's weak…and though some are 'committed to paper', we still don't know what the final bill (s) might look like when they come up for vote.

    'Weak' is prejudging the outcome. The 2000 page bill, as you know, is not just the outcome of liberals trying to take over the medical system….it also reflects the corporate interests trying to save their own fiefdoms.

    There's some value in acknowledging there are vested interests in not reforming our health care system.

  • http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

    I agree completely: the special interest guys are in there trying to run this so they benefit the most from it and while I think its a fool's errand, its good to know the whole picture.

    Conservatives aren't pro big business, we're pro free market, and sometimes (often?) that puts you up against big business.

  • rmiller

    Posted by CavalierX

    2009-11-02 17:49:32

    I have to admit…your outrage does strike a cord with me.

    It is hard to understand how we, as constituents, are expected to understand such an outlandish set of bills. And I can honestly say that I worry about the ability of my representatives in the gov't to understand these sorts of bills.

    I'm not comfortable with this situation.

    I'm also not comfortable with not reforming health care. That premiums have risen so much faster over inflation in the past decade is the reason for the push for reform.

    The Kaiser Family Foundation said 133% over the past decade. Our wages haven't kept up with that. There's a reason for the push for reform.

    I'm not sure whether gov't intervention is the answer….but until there is an alternative, that's how I'll vote.

    I know conservatives would argue let the market function….but hasn't the functioning market led us to this situation?

  • tblrk2006

    "Especially since there is no bill yet?

    Posted by rmiller

    2009-11-02 17:31:33"

    Are you blind? We have almost 2k pages right now. And there have been 4 or 5 bills in the past couple months. Members of your party have said they havent and dont intend to read it. Just blind trust that the many authors got it all right.

    "I'm not sure whether gov't intervention is the answer….but until there is an alternative, that's how I'll vote.

    Posted by rmiller

    2009-11-02 21:03:57"

    Are you blind? Havent you seen what it does to healthcare in other countries that have done this? And dont forget, once the govt has its hands on this there wont be an easy way to get rid of obama care.

    "I know conservatives would argue let the market function….but hasn't the functioning market led us to this situation?

    Posted by rmiller

    2009-11-02 21:03:57"

    No. Govt intervention, regulation, and lack of regulation has led us to this situation. And we still have the best care in the world and reasonable insurance to cover some of it. Remember, health insurance was never meant to pay for every little sniffle. Its to cover catastrophic costs that might BK you.

  • tblrk2006

    You want health care costs to go down? We need the doctors insurance to go down. How do we do that? Tort reform and less govt. Doing that will eventualy cause our insurance to go down b/c health care costs will be cheaper b/c the dr doesnt have to charge as much to cover his insurance costs. Might be nice to let insurance companies compete a little more too. You cannot compete against your regulating body that doesnt have to turn a profit to stay in business. Pelosi and Obama lie out of their asses when the say "increase competition" when talking about govt insurance.

  • http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

    What president Obama ran on resonated with a lot of people – heck it resonated with me, I just knew he wasn't the guy he pretended to be. If he hadn't had such a radical past, such insanely radical leftist friends and such a nasty voting record (when he actually voted) I might have voted for the guy.

    The need for change in Washington is very real. That's what attracted voters to him, the foolish, misguided, ignorant belief he represented that kind of change, and what's more actually had the power to execute it by himself.

  • http://PatriotPost.US bthewolf

    I know conservatives would argue let the market function….but hasn't the functioning market led us to this situation?

    Posted by rmiller

    2009-11-02 21:03:57

    No actually many of the problems can be directly attributed to govt. intervention. Before Medicare there were practically NO issues with access too or the cost of healthcare in the US. But when the govt started paying less for the services and devices than the market would bear, the providers had to make up the costs by charging everyone else more. Similar things happened when the govt tried to create HMOs as an answer to the need for insurance. Then came govt giving tax breaks to companies to get more people insured, it worked but now wages are down since the companies can't afford to pay as much to make up for their costs. Add to that several other similar programs like insurers not being able to sell across state lines, limiting competion, and you have the mess which is our current situation. And you want to the govt to DO MORE?

  • http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

    You might have missed it, Miller, so here's my suggestions to fix the health insurance problems in America. They'd take time to really finally repair things, but that's the way most good solutions work:

    1) work to set up medical savings plan structures so people can set aside money that they could only spend on medical care, thus injecting personal responsibility into health care and concern over costs. This tends to limit frivolous or excessive use of insurance, and makes it more an emergency expense rather than "ooh I cut my finger."

    2) Reform tort law to protect doctors and discourage frivolous and income lawsuits (the kind where people sue to make money as a job rather than as legal recourse).

    3) Change the laws so that insurance companies can sell across state lines.

    4) ?Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. (this is a quote from Mackey's plan, because he puts it succinctly).

    5) Lower taxes so that individuals have more liquidity and are better able to care for themselves and others in need. Charitable giving always goes up in better economic times, and people with more money can help friends and family more.

    6) Utterly eliminate Medicare and Medicaid in all its various forms and assist states in setting up their own version if they wish. Cut taxes equivalent to this vast reduction in government spending.

    This isn't new, any of it. We've said this over and over. Just because people don't want to listen doesn't mean it hasn't been said.

    Bonus: it addresses both costs and personal responsibility, as well as shrinking the federal government to constitutional boundaries and stimulating the economy. The Democratic Party plan does none of this. It just tries to make everything more socialist with the idiotic, baseless presumption that government does everything better.

  • rmiller

    Posted by Christopher_Taylor

    2009-11-02 22:24:43

    I understand where you are going with this….and think you are correct. Personal responsibility should be an important part of health care.

    But it is also true that many people work hard and cannot afford to pay the premiums. In an ideal world you would be correct. But in a world of minimum wage laws where 15K is acceptible as a measure of poverty, then the 6K per year premiums for health insurance are a deal breaker….

    don't you think?

  • rmiller

    No actually many of the problems can be directly attributed to govt. intervention. Before Medicare there were practically NO issues with access too or the cost of healthcare in the US. Posted by bthewolf

    2009-11-02 22:14:12

    Correct…because we just let people die.

  • http://guardian.blogdrive.com/ CavalierX

    But it is also true that many people work hard and cannot afford to pay the premiums.

    If that was really your aim, you'd be on our side in this debate. We could easily reduce the premiums NOT by instituting a huge government bureaucracy to take over health care, but by tort reform, allowing competition across state lines and giving individuals the same tax breaks as corporations, so that health care would no longer be tied to one's employer. But you don't really want to reduce costs and allow people to control their own lives, do you?

  • http://conservativebootcamp.com martinhale

    “But it is also true that many people work hard and cannot afford to pay the premiums. In an ideal world you would be correct. But in a world of minimum wage laws where 15K is acceptible as a measure of poverty, then the 6K per year premiums for health insurance are a deal breaker….

    don’t you think?”

    I’ve got two reactions to your hypothetical.

    Firstly, at the figures you cite, that person would be qualified under current rules in most states for a fair amount of public health care assistance. With an annual income of $15k, you’d be eligible for at least partial Medicaid, plus WIC health care dollars and S-CHIP dollars for your kids health care. In addition, there are thousands of other programmes which cover the poor for special conditions. Given the current state of coverage in this country the person you cite making $15k/yr wouldn’t be buying any health care insurance anyway, so why use him as an example of anything other than government/taxpayer largesse?

    Secondly, your hypothetical presupposes that premiums need to be as high as they are today. That dog just don’t hunt, my friend. The truth is that premiums don’t need to be as high as they are. There are things we could be doing which are guaranteed to reduce the cost of those premiums. And not one of the six bills currently under review actually do those things. Ten years ago, the HMO at which I was a principal sold a catastrophic coverage policy which would cover major medical expenses 90/10 for only around $100/mo, or $1200/yr. That’s a far cry from the $6k you quote. All we did to make that plan work was resurrect an old idea, one that dates to the earliest days of health care insurance – let people be responsible for their outpatient expenses with the exception of pharmacy expenses and let the insurance cover the big ticket expenses. There are dozens of structural changes we could make to insurance plan designs which could lower premium costs. Just to illustrate what I’m talking about, I’m in the middle of negotiating health care coverage for our 16,000 employees and their dependents (about 30,000 covered lives in all). During one round of negotiations, I asked the insurance company to price out raising the co-pay for outpatient visits by $5/visit and raising the prescription co-ay by $3. Those two small changes dropped the premium amount by 2 1/2%, saving the health system the better part of a million dollars. Why aren’t we looking at insurance plan design changes which have been proven to lower premiums time and time again?

    Finally, five of the six items in Mr. Taylor’s ‘wish list’ are aimed at making the costs of health care, and thus the cost of health care insurance, go down rather than up. Shouldn’t that be the whole point of health insurance reform? Isn’t that the most direct way to help the man or woman in your example?

    But instead, we see ideas like insurance exchanges which require sellers to sell policies porked out with coverage that most people don’t want or need. Coverage that’s there only to politically co-opt a bunch of special interests. Not only doesn’t that keep the cost of premiums down, what ever happened to the idea of letting people decide for themselves what they want to buy or not buy? Do you distrust the common man so much that you won’t let him decide for himself what he needs or doesn’t need? Nothing I’ve seen in any of the bills has the positive impact of lowering actual health care costs, and therefore those bills do nothing to lower health care insurance premiums. I see loads of new taxes and regulations in these bills, but very, very little which will actually reduce the cost of health care delivery.

    This is why the whole effort has been an exercise in political cronyism and payoffs. Just like Hairy Reed’s $250 Bn buyoff of the doctors which failed.

  • http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

    But it is also true that many people work hard and cannot afford to pay the premiums. In an ideal world you would be correct. But in a world of minimum wage laws where 15K is acceptible as a measure of poverty, then the 6K per year premiums for health insurance are a deal breaker….

    don't you think?

    I agree, but you need to look over the totality of what I said. See, the reason the premiums are so high and the expense for health care are so high is because there's insufficient competition and expenses are too high for the providers.

    We can increase competition by changing tax law and allowing insurers to sell across state lines.

    We can decrease costs by reducing frivolous and extraneous visits to the doctor through savings plans, and by controlling lawsuits through tort reform, thus reducing malpractice insurance costs for doctors. That would also help doctors not feel the need to run every possible remotely related test to make sure they're safer from lawsuits as well.

    See how it works? Why not try it? I mean, we've tried medicare and medicaid and they're disasters. How in God's name is more of the same going to work better?

    Its time for something different. Something better.

  • smelvertising

    many people work hard and cannot afford to pay the premiums.

    That, again, is a problem that begins with entitlement mentality (if your stipend is X, and your premiums are X/2, either raise X or spend less), and continues with government regulation (premiums would go down with more competition, tort reform and deregulation).

    That's assuming the example is real, of course, and not the usual, tired, abused manipulation of statistics to create heartrending cases that don't exist in the real world. It's not like you liberals do that EVERY OTHER DAY or anything. /sarcasm

    I'm sorry not everyone can afford premiums. But just like I wouldn't rally for the abolishment of driving licenses because children are killed by drivers every year, I can't call for the rationing of health care, death panels and potential horrendous curtailing of individual freedoms just because some can't afford things. Hard cases like those make for bad law, and public health care would be the bad law that sinks the US.

    Those people should change their lifestyle, or at least rally for a reduction of the perverted, useless overhead that is the state. If only because statal solutions do not work, cannot work, never have worked and never will work – pretending otherwise is amusing, but also self-serving and ultimately pointless.

  • http://PatriotPost.US bthewolf

    Correct…because we just let people die.

    Posted by rmiller

    2009-11-03 00:46:22

    No we didn't where the hell do you get that idea? Seriously? I mean you have proof that people were ever denied care in this country?

  • Tennwriter

    Another change we could make is to make it so as many doctors as wish can become doctors. I think its the AMA that does this by manipulating med school admissions so as to keep supply low and demand high.

  • Pingback: Google

  • Pingback: John Hawkins’ Columns | Right Wing News

  • Pingback: liqueur recipes feed

  • Pingback: no carb diet plan

Advertisement
Featured Video

The History of Ernesto Che Guevara – A Short Story

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”
Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth
Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers
The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation
The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans
Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders
Advertisement
User Info