The rules are different for us
Posted by aogSaturday, 18 February 2012 at 19:18
TrackBack Ping URL
On this subject, I have no doubt that most (if not almost all) MALists believe, if they think about it at all, that a government is only allowed to require things like this in private insurance, and would never consider the idea that such control means the ability to forbid.
P.S. May I note that comments about how the Catholic Church (and to some extent other mainline Christian sects) are getting hoisted by their own petard? They’ve supported overreaching government intervention, and by and large support POR-care, both of which lead directly to this result. What does it say of their morality if their position is “sure, micro-manage everyone else as long as we get a waiver”?
|AVeryRoughRoadAhead - Winter is coming...
Sunday, 04 March 2012 at 04:35|
The social conservatives (and the majority of the GOP) rejects Romney…
It seems to me that it would be very difficult to substantiate a claim that the person who has won the most delegates so far in the nomination process is rejected by the majority of their party. While it’s true that so far Romney can claim no more than a plurality in primary preference, he may well be the second choice of most Paul and Gingrich voters.
As to why I like to see Romney prevailing despite being despised by the deepest conservatives, it’s about national political process and triangulation. I’d rather see Romney as President than Obama, and the less right Romney has to tack in the primaries the better he’ll be positioned for Nov. The majority of the GOP and independents are NOT conservative, and Romney may well be able to attract substantial numbers of Dems for whom Obama’s been a disappointment. Santorum could never do that.
If I were worried about the GOP candidate being “Obama-lite”, then my guy would be Paul, not Romney. Neither Gingrich nor Santorum has demonstrated any particular passion for cutting spending during their political careers, and Gingrich in particular has a personal history of excessive spending and a public history of extremely poor fiscal management.
They read statements like this as “I will not criticize Obama on any issue Old Media or the Obama campaign wants off limits”. I am mystified as to why you think that’s (1) good or (2) more likely to defeat Obama.
If one believes that Romney will not criticize Obama or broach any subject that the Obama campaign wants off-limits, then that would be bad. I don’t happen to share those beliefs.
It’s pretty clear in the excerpt that Romney’s trying to paint his opponents as shallow bomb-throwing attention whores, as opposed to Romney’s experienced and dignified gravitas. It has exactly zero to do with Obama, except that his name was used.
Europe self-destructing won’t convince anyone that we shouldn’t follow down their path…
Well, it’s not all bad. For instance, like Europe, the U.S. will eventually have universal health care, (for real, not the Obamacare maximize-corporate-profits nonsense), driven by the unsupportable demands of Boomer medical needs and desires. That will improve efficiency in our terminally dysfunctional health care system, leaving more money in the pockets of American citizens. (Who will undoubtedly mostly squander it on Coke and Twinkies.)
|AVeryRoughRoadAhead - Winter is coming...
Thursday, 08 March 2012 at 01:16|
BTW - I’d rather eat ground glass than read anything in the NYT.
Then here’s one for you, erp, from Investor’s Business Daily which you’ve said before that you DO read, and have in fact quoted and referenced.
Super Tuesday: How Mitt Romney won and why that worries Obama, by Andrew Malcolm
…Although much of the media talk has been about Romney’s inability to “close the deal” for the Republican nomination, his opponents are far weaker closing their attempted non-Romney deal with Republicans.
With the exception of North Dakota’s caucuses, Romney finished second everywhere he wasn’t first. This means that if his two main opponents win here and there, Romney wins the most places and gets delegates everywhere.
He even beat Gingrich next door to Georgia in conservative Tennessee with its numerous evangelical voters, who are supposed to be bothered by Mormons. Romney beat Santorum for second in the deep South of Georgia. And the Mormon creamed Catholic Santorum among Ohio Catholics. […]
Romney won by assembling a coalition of moderates, self-described Somewhat Conservatives, independents, Catholics, single women, college graduates and affluent urban and suburban dwellers whose top concerns are the economy and defeating Obama. “The economy is what I do,” Romney says over and over.
Understandably, during a GOP primary in 2012, much attention has been focused on the Very Conservatives often opting for someone else when they have a primary choice. One, quietly Romney is slowly doing better with that group in each election. And in the end, if they really believe “Don’t Tread on Me,” what are they going to do on Election Day, sit at home watching a History Channel documentary on the gloriously pure Goldwater debacle?
Two, while Romney’s conservative credentials and instincts might seem disappointingly moderate among some of the dedicated Republican primary crowd seven months out, they’re perfect for a general election campaign two months out. […]
There would be two men left standing there, Mitt Romney, businessman, and Barack Obama, Chicago Democrat. Who then will look conservative?
And check out this awesome pic of Ann Romney. I don’t think that I’ve ever seen a better shot of her on the campaign trail. Smokin’!!:
Rough, I don’t know what you mean by blue collar health care. Unions have the kind of health care us silver spoon types can only dream about…
Oh, my bad. I forgot that the 7.2 million private-sector union members are the only blue-collar workers in America.
So what do YOU call the health care insurance typically carried by non-union, non-professional working class people?
And also, among other things, I’m a licensed insurance agent who used to be endorsed by large corporations to sell health insurance policies to their union members for whom they were dropping group coverage. My personal experience and professional knowledge inform me that many union members DO NOT have extraordinary health care coverage, certainly nothing that you silver-spoon types would touch with a 10’ pole.
…and it doesn’t cost them a dime — us ss’ers pay for it all…
Absolutely incorrect. Almost nothing could be further from the truth. I’ll be happy to get into the esoteric details with you, should you desire. The main take-away is that you SS-ers DO NOT PAY for union health care, at least not any more so than does any other member of society.
…and pay for our own too.
*ahem* Another contentious point. SS-ers did indeed in the past pay premiums towards their current benefits, and SS-ers continue to contribute a smidgen against the cost of today’s health care, but as a group, IN NO WAY do the contributions of the past and the ongoing premiums cover the projected lifetime cost of today’s SS-eligible retirees. We’re not even going to address the Boomers. SS-ers have a moral (but not legal) entitlement to health benefits, but please don’t insult those paying for the bulk of such care by insisting that today’s SS-ers “pay for their own care.” They pay a portion.
BTW - my baby boomer kids assure me that their generation is savvy in their life styles — eating right and exercising, so they won’t won’t get old age maladies like us geezers.
I hope they’re right.
All available health care, medical and lifestyle statistics say that that’s extremely delusional wishful thinking. A shame, too, ‘cause the Boomers won’t have the kind of comprehensive health care that today’s retirees enjoy.
But of course, what is universally true of their generation may have no bearing on the specific; your kids may well be paragons of healthful virtue.
…to ignore the fact that those operating parameters (the direct cause of so much waste and efficiency) were imposed by the federal government is to miss the bigger part of what’s wrong with government supplied services.
But the point that you miss is WHY the Federal gov’t imposed parameters which are a direct cause of waste and inefficiency.
And the reason is because the gov’t is striving to serve people in places and ways which aren’t particularly profitable. Civil services are provided regardless of efficiency.
Now, we could argue about the extent to which our society should go to serve the outliers, but so far in the modern era Americans as a whole have been relatively generous in subsidizing the standard of living for those who don’t live in massive urban areas, which for obvious reasons are cheap to service per-capita in most ways.
Regarding the USPS in particular, we could just eliminate it and mandate that UPS, FedEx and others provide all of the USPS’s former services, along with their current cherry-picked services. That would be an interesting experiment to see if somehow the USPS’s current leadership and culture were to blame for their operating losses, or if it truly is a function of mission…
As for government health care not being worse, I think our federal government could in fact make it worse than it is now.
But the choices aren’t between a currently perfect, Utopian quasi-private healthcare system and an evil, degrading gov’t-run public healthcare system.
The current system is riddled with political meddling, is more socialist that capitalistic, only exists because Congress exempts it from prosecution for collusion and consumer fraud… In short, it’s a bureaucratic, inefficient mess that vastly overconsumes resources and enriches a relatively few oligarchical or connected elites. To say “better the Devil we know than the one we don’t” seems squalid.
In any case, the reason that it’s more than an argument over philosophy is because the current system is at the breaking point. It WILL change, and IMO the most likely change is to a universal, public system, with all of its flaws and faults. At least, as long as the U.S. remains a semi-democratic system. If we end up with totalitarianism, soft or not, then we may well see an even more bifurcated health care system than currently exists.
There is also the concern about future progress and development, something that will happen far less and far slower under government management.
Can’t be helped. But erp’s kids are on to something: clean living is far more effective than drug therapies for lifestyle diseases. And there will still be plenty of money to be made by developing a cancer cure or pandemic innoculation, so research in those critical areas will continue apace.
As for the rest… How may cholesterol medications does society need, for instance? There are 18 on the market, representing tens of billions of dollars worth of research and marketing. Such redundancy is very costly, and it’s obvious that none of the drugs is universally far-and-away better than any of the others.
So while there are clear social costs to a slower pace of R&D, it’s not an unmitigated negative.