Clinton Backs Up Obama On Race, Says Prez Wants To Win “On The Merits”
Pretty interesting: President Obama got some important backing from Bill Clinton last night on the question of whether race is driving anti-Obama rage, with Clinton deftly remaining on message and amplifying Obama’s position that race is only a minor factor.
Clinton also added a pretty slick rhetorical flourish of his own, claiming twice that Obama wants to win the big policy fights “on the merits,” a reminder that Clinton knows a thing or two about navigating racial politics. Here’s Clinton’s answer to the race question on Larry King, worth quoting at length:
I believe that some of the right-wing extremists which oppose President Obama are also racially prejudiced and would prefer not to have an African-American president. But I don’t believe that all the people that oppose him on health care and all the conservatives are racist.
And I believe if he were white, every single person who opposes him now would be opposing him then.
We have to win this health care fight on the merits. And that’s what the president said. He’s absolutely right about it. I respect President Carter for his concern about this. But this is a fight about whether we are going to basically keep making excuses for being the only wealthy country in the world that can’t figure out how to ensure everybody…
Let me put it this way. If Barak Obama were a white president, I believe virtually 100 percent of the people who oppose him on health care today would oppose him on health care anyway…
So, I don’t want to say that President Carter is wrong about there being some still racial prejudice involved in the opponents of President Obama, but this fight is a fight which would exist no matter the color of his skin…He wants to fight this on the merits.
The White House suggests folks in the media are looking for any excuse they can find to keep the race conversation going. If that’s true, then Clinton did Obama a big solid by refusing to disagree with Carter — which would have made news — while deftly helping downplay the notion that Obama harbors even a hint of racial grievance about his critics.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
The White House suggests folks in the media are looking for any excuse they can find to keep the race conversation going.
Thanks for underscoring the point, Greg.
It’s Barack.
On the merits…the Repubs have NO argument. The only rational point they have made is concern about the cost…but even that is suspect when the previous REPUBLICAN admimistration ran up huge deficits on an unnecessary war to settle a personal score.
The Repubs lose this battle on the merits and so I ask has it not occured to anyone that it is the smart conservatives who encourage all the race baiting to distract from the REAL debate..and then of course cry foul when the subject of race is discussed. Not good for the country, unethical..but a very smart tactic.
The prevailing view on this blog has been that opposition to Obama and Democratic “reform” is indeed racist, that Carter was on target, and that opponents starting with Joe Wilson needed to be denounced as racists.
If this post indicates the new direction, apparently the left will now denounce the media for starting and perpetuating the whole thing.
For now, I am willing, however, to take Clinton at face value and applaud him for doing the responsible thing, except that he really should have had the spine directly to say Carter is wrong and shouldn’t have made his irresponsible (and factually false) allegations.
No rational argument against socializing health care . . . oh brother.
@quarterback: the very fact that you talk of “socializing health care” when there is not one legitimate bill on the table proposing universal healthcare just kind of proves the point that rukidding was making: you all are just pulling stuff out of your a** at this point.
Schrodinger,
The fact that Democrats lack a coherent plan means that you have no more basis to say that “reform” does not involve socializing health care than I have to say it does. Obama wants a single payer system. So do (or so did) other leading Democrats, and we all know that the only reason there isn’t a consensus Democratic bill that would introduce single payer is that it is a political loser. The “public option” is intended to achieve the goal more incrementally.
You can play your cynical game of pretend, but I’m not participating.
And, btw, that wasn’t rukidding’s point.
Smart, clear-sighted, and adept. Quite a boy, our Billy.
Off-topic, but wanted to note this passage from David Horowitz in an argument with Frum. If you haven’t read a Horowitz book, I recommend the exercise. Tedium…yes, you’ll experience lots of that. And aggrieved victimhood. But most interesting is Horowitz’s importation of his earlier Leninist ideas on political engagement into everything he is up to now.
“[Al] Franken is now a U.S. Senator in part because conservatives of whom you are typical want to conduct politics by the Marquis of Queensberry rules when the other side is in it as war in which destruction of the enemy is the game. Franken calls us evil. You call him mistaken (and unfunny). And you want other conservatives to do the same. The more conservatives who follow your advice the more we will lose. Personally, I am thrilled with what is happening now in the conservative movement – our aggressive media like Fox and talk radio, the emergence of enraged conservative masses – the tea baggers – as leftist half-wits like to dismiss them. It is this energized, unapologetic, in-your-face (but also civilized and intelligent) conservative base on whom the future not only of the movement but the country depends.” http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/dispatches-from-a-parallel-universe.html
It’s never really possible to ascertain whether Horowitz is sincere or whether he is merely lying through the teeth because of the “war” and what a good Leninist will include in his armory when engaged in ‘war’. But that constant tenor in his books of aggrieved victimhood suggests the man is a mix of Leninist tactics, sincere believes, along with that particular pathology which gave rise to the term “projection”.
all, please let me know if you experience delays commenting today…
FYI…Obama speaking (again) on CNBC right now.
Some delays and what appear to be disappearances of comments from the past couple of days.
@quarterback: Obama “wants” a single payer system? So? That doesn’t mean he’s “socializing” healthcare. He probably wants ponies and puppies for all, too.
Act all indignant if you want, but no one is talking about a single-payer system. I’ll hand your side props, though…I think you all have managed to convince quite a few people that “public option” means single payer. rukidding’s point, I believe, was that your side can only win by obfuscating….the fact that you keep talking about a single payer system when it’s not on the table only proves his/her point.
And…sure enough, Huffington Post runs a story about Clinton saying nearly the same thing on ABC this morning.
Headline?
“Bill Clinton: Carter Wrong on Obama and Race”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22/bill-clinton-carter-wrong_n_294526.html
Even the “librul blogs” love their catnip. Pathetic.
I think both Bill Clinton and President Obama are showing some serious class by not pursuing the cheap and incorrect route many Democrats in the House would LOVE to use, demonizing anyone who has serious concerns about what amounts to the largest change to American life since, well, ever.
There are some serious concerns with socialized medicine (just look at the pros and cons of northern Europe and Canada… they aren’t exactly the best solutions if you look at the numbers). If this is going to happen, and I think to a point it should, it needs to be a deliberate and careful change that addresses the many concerns that both sides have.
This should take years of debate and work (and not the closed door committee kind, serious open work). And shouldn’t just be crammed through haphazardly. If this is important it should take the time it takes.
When we finally reform healthcare for everyone in America it should look NOTHING like Europe and Canada. It should look like what we have right now, except affordable and accessible.
Schrodinger:
…but no one is talking about a single-payer system…
Your apparent belief that what politicians say to the public and what they are trying to accomplish are one and the same is touching. Naive, but touching.
Hate to be off topic but you have to see the new vido from Funny or Die about protecting the insurance companies.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22/protect-insurance-compani_n_294406.html
On racism…I’m reading Dave Neiwert’s book “Eliminationists” on the history in the US of movements to marginalize or eliminate non-white racial communities. It’s very good though insufficiently footnoted. But it’s also damned depressing. Just the example of Asians is truly horrid and that’s certainly not even near the worst example. But its one that has clear similarities in Canada, particularly on the west coast. For example, our anti-drug laws (and all the paranoia-mongering that attended) came as a consequence of attempts to isolate and criminalize Asian culture and people. So, if you want to get depressed through facing certain really ugly truths about the US (or Canada), I recommend the book. It puts Beck and Limbaugh (not to mention the Oklahoma City bombing) in the proper historical context.
The opponents of health care reform and of the president would love to be able to make this about race so they could hammer him on – race.
Who wants to spend another month to 6 weeks arguing about something you can’t change?
Bernie – Niewert is one of my favorite people and this is his subject. I don’t know if I could take a whole book on it -
“So, if you want to get depressed through facing certain really ugly truths about the US (or Canada), I recommend the book. It puts Beck and Limbaugh (not to mention the Oklahoma City bombing) in the proper historical context.”
That is disgusting.
“This should take years of debate and work (and not the closed door committee kind, serious open work). And shouldn’t just be crammed through haphazardly. If this is important it should take the time it takes.”
A. we don’t have years – the costs keep going up now
B. We’ve discussed this for years – for over 40 years.
C. Why should it look NOTHING like what another country has and where do you get the idea that the systems in Britain and Canada aren’t good systems?
@Quarterback,
Why can’t you simply face facts. You hurl around “socialism” like it is some epithet. Listen I believe in capitalism and free enterprise..in it’s proper place and perspective and properly regulated. I am free thinking enough to believe that there is also a place for socialism in our society…the most important being of course our national defense. Alas now instead of Marines guarding our embassies in order to hide our involvement and the real human cost the neocons have outsourced a lot of it to private contractors…I’ll take the Marines over Blackwater any day of the week both for cost control and effeciency…and so that makes me for socialism…and perhaps you too QB.
Meanwhile QB can you address these simple facts?
Physicians…generally far more conservative than our population at large…generally paid far above what the average American earns (not a bad thing they’ve earned it) are for single payer by a LARGE majority.
Fact…of the three health care systems in our country VA-socialized Medicare-single payer and the privately insured…VA gets the highest marks from it’s consumers and other health care practioners…Medicare scores next best..with the private insurance companies rationing based totally on THEIR expense and for profit thereby getting the worst marks from consumers.
These are simple facts QB. You can try and demonize and sway the debate with that awful word “socialism” which the vast majority of our citizens don’t really understand. I don’t think people really want to go back to private toll roads instead of the Interstate System…built by the way by a Republican President.
I don’t think people enjoy the fact that we are back to the 1890’s gospel of wealth where people actually believe God’s grace is the total reason they are wealthy and if they are smart enough to screw their fellow citizen it is with God’s blessing and therefore OK.
I tend to join with the physicians in support of a single payer because I’ve been brainwashed all my life like you QB and the very word “socialism” reeks of the red menace or some Scandanavian country..where ironically enough they always test higher for happiness than we do. However virtually EVERY model of medical success in our country..The Mayo Clinic..Cleveland Clinic..etc involves getting Doctors off getting paid by procedure and onto a good salary which is unaffected by which procedures they perform. Until the day health is not looked at like a credit default swap or some derivative and the game is played to see who can make the MOST MONEY..we are doomed to be the 37th ranked health care system in the world while paying twice as much for it…These are simply facts QB…not name calling…open up your eyes…all capitalism is not good and all socialism is not bad…a rational person looking at the facts would come to the conclusion that the real debate should be about what mix is best. In health care the verdict is in for anybody willing to look at FACTS!
Scott C said: “Your apparent belief that what politicians say to the public and what they are trying to accomplish are one and the same is touching. Naive, but touching.”
I doubt we’ll bump into a sillier and less coherent comment today than this one.
We could ask…does this refer to all politicians? If not, who not, and why not?
We could look at three statements from politicans and check them against the formulation above.
1) “enhanced interrogation techniques are effective and necessary”
2) Iraq presents an imminent threat to America
3) I don’t believe single payer, which I prefer, is possible at this point but I am hoping to get a public option passed.
Of these three, which hew closer to what we all understand as “truthful”?
Of these three, which one actually gives citizens a chance to decide for themselves how they wish their society to be organized?
Which among these three is coercive, authoritarian, and bespeaks the worst that governments and politicians might get up to?
Schrodinger said:
“Act all indignant if you want, but no one is talking about a single-payer system. I’ll hand your side props, though…I think you all have managed to convince quite a few people that “public option” means single payer.”
Precisely, Democratic leadership is not “talking about” single payer — anymore that is. And that is one very good reason for concern, because it is undeniably their ultimate goal. The so-called “inventor” of the public option — Jacob Hacker — has openly said it is a means to the end.
This is a familiar route for the advancement of liberalism/socialism and growth of the welfare state. Liberals propose/demand “modest” and incremental government involvement, denying that it will lead to further involvment, and then as soon as “modest” measures are in place they them insufficient and demand more. People get gradually acclimated to the loss of their freedoms and are then easy prey to further government encroachments. It is creeping socialism. And once liberal programs are in place, they become sacrosanct.
Look, you can tell the rest of us to ignore reality all you want, but this is one lesson conservatives have learned after decades of growth of the welfare state at the expense of freedom. Conservatives are going to keep pointing out these inconvenient truths — liberals want to put us on the slippery slope to single payer. That is the whole plan.
“People get gradually acclimated to the loss of their freedoms and are then easy prey to further government encroachments. It is creeping socialism. And once liberal programs are in place, they become sacrosanct.”
People get acclimated to having a good health care system and where you get the idea that they lose freedom when we’ve discussed this endlessly is a mystery – or would be if I didn’t already know what your intent is.
How exactly do people lose freedom from having a heath care system that is pitched toward what they need rather than insurance company profits? You keep throwing the freedom idea around and you never pin it to anything real.
These comments by Clinton are a new blow to the attempts by some in the Democratic Party to blow the impact of racism out of proportion. Republicans hate all Big Dems, period.
“Jacob Hacker — has openly said it is a means to the end.”
And you follow that to mean we’re getting single payer? SMH.
We aren’t any time soon and I can tell you why – because the insurance industry is one of the biggest investors on the planet and the world markets aren’t stable enough to be able to operate without that money. It would destabilize everything right now.
Tena said…”You keep throwing the freedom idea around and you never pin it to anything real.”
To which I say AMEN!!!! This has become the standard GOP response to everything.
Yes we have given up the freedom to watch children labor 10-12 hours a day in sweatshops…now the lazy little b&^stards invoke child labor laws…
The freedom to let old people make their own way…now those lazy 80 year olds lay around all day on Social Security and go get healthcare on Medicare.
Yes QB..Scott and others I’m looking forward to the day when your restore our FREEDOMS.
rukidding,
So in your lexicon, our armed forces and public roads are a form of socialism. I won’t even bother trying to explain how silly that is. You have a real penchant for straw men, not to mention an unwillingness or inability to distinguish between what are sometimes called public and private goods.
“..we are doomed to be the 37th ranked health care system in the world while paying twice as much for it…These are simply facts QB…not name calling”
You really don’t know the difference between facts and opinions. Your arguments also would apply to all industries and businesses across the board — you are advocating socialism. Be proud of it. But learn what it means.
In addition, calling socialism what it is isn’t name calling. It is calling things what they are. Since you openly favor socialism “mixed with” capitalism, you shouldn’t be offended by it.
I’d like to see some surveys that show that a large majority of physicians support a single payer system.
Time for President Clinton and President Carter to stop hogging the limelight. They had their turns in the White House. President Obama is handling the issue just right, and every time those two former Presidents keep making more comments on the subject, they are just diverting the media, and even this blog, from covering health care reform, the problem with Afghanistan, etc.
…………………………
Afghanistan.
When the dust settles, this may turn out to be the biggest mess that George Bush created, of all the many messes that he created, or facilitated.
We had to go after Al Qaeda. I still support getting those Barbarians. That was why we went into Afghanistan. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld clearly were not sincere about that mission, or they would have not taken their focus of it, shortly after it had begun.
It is all very well to pickup the bullhorn, on the 9/11 site, and declare that you are going to get those who ordered the 9/11 attacks, but when you then just go through the motions of going after them, and divert the vast majority of your military and intelligence resources to an unnecessary war of choice, elsewhere, then you were just lying to the American People about how you intended to hunt down Bin Laden and his gang of savages.
Bush/Cheney engaged in a symbiotic relationship with Ben Laden. They picked up the bullhorn, and amplified his message of terror, and they never stopped doing so. They had Tom Ridge raising terror alerts on a frequent basis, to keep the nation paralyzed with fear, in order to create the impression that we would all be doomed if we did not let them, Bush/Cheney, do what ever they wished. After all, they would be our only protection from the Barbarians, that they had stopped trying to hunt down.
So here we are, almost eight years later. The Taliban is resurgent. I was shocked to see what part of Afghanistan it was, where they hijacked those two fuel tankers, that NATO then hit with missiles. It was in the far north of the country. It was in an area where the Taliban was not even in control of on the day we first went into Afghanistan. Remember the Northern Alliance, that we worked with, when we launched our assault? The Taliban is now in the north, where they never used to be, because they are Pashtuns, from a different tribe and region of the country.
So what can be done now, to improve our chances of making the region more stable, and less hostile to us. I think that we missed our chance to do so, after we first went in there. That is why I say that this is probably the biggest mess that Bush/Cheney have created.
Our military is burned out, from all those frequent tours of Iraq. Their families are also burned out from having to go through all those tours of duty, with their loved ones.
Afghanistan is much larger, and much more difficult terrain, than Iraq was, and you saw how difficult it was for our Military there.
Furthermore, Afghanistan is a country in name only. It is a patchwork of very many tribes, local autonomous chiefs, plus drug and warlords. The recent corrupt election, has made a mockery of the notion of having a trustworthy central government, that can be relied on as a strong working partner.
For all those reasons, pulling out of there might have to be on the table.
However; if we do so, then Pakistan will be left to deal with the consequences of our withdrawal. Lately they have being doing much better at going after the Barbarians, in badlands on their side of the border. If we leave, will Pakistan feel that they will have to make accommodations with those people, just like their predecessors did? I think that there is a strong chance that they will, and there in lies the crux of the matter. Al Qaeda is in those border regions, and Pakistan has an arsenal of Nukes. They are not going to let us take custody of them, because they feel that is their best defense against India, a bordering Nuclear Weapons state.
So, how do we reduce our efforts in Afghanistan, because we are not going to be able to create a honestly governed functioning state there. It might have been in the cards, when we had the Taliban on the run, shortly after we invaded, but neglecting that central objective for the past seven years, has created condition there now, that we are simply not going to be able reverse. Yet we still have to hunt down and destroy Al Qaeda. That we must do, or else they will grow stronger, after our withdrawal, and in conjunction with the Taliban, they would stand a good chance of turning Pakistan into another Afghanistan, this time with a nuclear arsenal. That is the nightmare that must keep waking President Obama up at night.
I am just laying out the current situation, as I see it. I see no easy solutions. I see no way that we are going to be able to reverse how the Taliban were allowed, over the past seven years, to become even stronger than they were on 9/11/2001. So we have to accept that trying the surge approach there is not really possible. The country is too big, and too regionally autonomous, for us to be able to blanket the place with enough troops to smother the Taliban. We do not have enough troops to deploy for such a massive undertaking.
So, we must find someway to establish a regional base, from which we can pursue Al Qaeda, and keep Pakistan within our embrace, so that they continue to apply pressure on the bad guys in the tribal border regions.
Easier said than done, but before we can find a solution, we must first be aware of what we are now facing, and what we can realistically hope to accomplish. We can no longer hope to accomplish in Afghanistan, what we could have, if we had finished the job, right after we went in. We did not strike while the iron was hot, and the iron is now cold, and the Taliban now own both the forge and the anvil.
We probably should try to make some arrangement with them, that they will not accommodate Al Qaeda, and if they do, we will make sure that none of their leaders will ever be able to feel safe in their sleep. In some ways, since Karzai is not worth bothering with, we might be better of to have the Taliban in charge. When in power, the have to set up offices, and those are much easier to take out with drones, than trying to find their leaders now.
Just some food for thought folks. This is a huge problem on President Obama’s plate, and thanks to Bush/Cheney lying to the American people, and not really hunting down the Barbarians, this President has to grapple with the current situation, where it would appear that he has to choose between a lot of bad options.
I am glad that he is taking his time, and not being rushed into upping the military ante. Generals always push for that option. The did in Vietnam, long after it was clear that there was no way that we could prevail there. We are seeing the same type of military decisin making now, about Afghanistan. McChrystal reports that things are worse than ever there, and his only solution appears to be military escalation.
Just like in Vietnam, since we have only a very corrupt government partner,that lacks any semblance of a national military institution, then who would we fighting for?
I think this crisis needs some serious national debate. That is why I have posted the results of my pondering about the issue. We are at a crossroads here folks, and what we do, going forward will probably decide if Al Qaeda gets vanquished, or becomes stronger than ever.
That is why I intend to post these remarks, on a few threads, during the next few days. We have to engage the issue. The future of civilization may be in the balance.
rukidding,
Do you deal in any form of argument except straw men, distortion, and hyperbole?
Most people understand quite well how a single payer system would take away liberty. Need that really be explained to you? If I am prohibited from paying a physician for treatment I want, or if I am a physician who is prohibited from being paid for such treatment, yes, I have lost my freedom. And it is remarkable that liberals often assert that health care is some sort of fundamental right, yet think that taking away my liberty to obtain and pay for it, in favor of a socialist system, fail to see this.
In the shorter run, once incremental “reform” with higher taxes, regulations, and a “public option” is in place, we will lose freedom more incrementally.
“Most people understand quite well how a single payer system would take away liberty. Need that really be explained to you? If I am prohibited from paying a physician for treatment I want, or if I am a physician who is prohibited from being paid for such treatment, yes, I have lost my freedom.”
What is remarkable is that you keep pushing this totally fallacious argument.
This is not the way it works. You will not be forced to go to a doctor someone else chooses for you – that’s what you have to do now under a hell of a lot of private insurance policies.
Why are you arguing so forcefully for all of us to stay indebted to insurance companies? I do not get this -
Are you going to sit there, quarterback,and tell me that private insurers don’t mandate doctors you can see? Because the coverage we get through Mr. Tena’s employer has a list of approved doctors and they won’t pay anyone not on the list.
How does that further your freedom?
“I do not get this -”
I know. You don’t get the difference between a socialized system and a private one, and why the former extinguishes freedom. But just to keep things focused on your comment:
First, you don’t know that your doctor would not be chosen for you under a single payer system. You have no idea. But it is inevitable that the governement would indeed exercise control not only over what physicians you could see but over what physicians are even available to treat patients, not to mention things like what medications and treatments are available.
Second, you are completely missing the larger point that if the government is the single payer you by definition cannot be allowed to seek out or provide treatment outside the government system. I don’t get how you can possibly not get this. If food were nationalized tomorrow, and the grocery stores all became government grocery stores, and you had to buy your food there, you would certainly understand that your freedom to choose had been taken away. Health care is no different.
Bernie:
I doubt we’ll bump into a sillier and less coherent comment today than this one.
Is Tena not around today?
We could ask…does this refer to all politicians?
All politicians, all the time? Of course not. But, not surprisingly, you are trying to obfuscate the point. When Schrodinger says that worries about a government takeover of the industry are unjustified because “no one is talking about that”, the underlying presumption is that someone who was aiming for a government takeoever would in fact “talk about it”. Such a presumption would be naive.
Of these three, which hew closer to what we all understand as “truthful”?
The issue is not whether a given statement is or is not “truthful”. The issue is whether or not politicians will promote policies for unstated purposes. Of course they will.
Of these three, which one actually gives citizens a chance to decide for themselves how they wish their society to be organized?>/b>
Your seeming adoration for majority rule is, again, touching, although really a matter of mere convenience for you rather than a principle, as we found out when I asked you about a majority imposing their religious beliefs on a minority. And what if people in, say, Kansas make a different decision than people in Massachusetts? In reality the imposition of a national standard will not, in fact, give citizens a chance to decide for themselves. Especially on such a controversial issue, a national policy tends to prohibit a very large chunk of citizens from deciding for themselves.
Tena:
Absolutely, private insurers under many plans pay only for listed physicians (or pay differentially in and out of network). But private insurers aren’t the federal government. Private insurance is contractual and subject to a competitive market. Surely you can understand the difference.
“But private insurers aren’t the federal government. Private insurance is contractual and subject to a competitive market. Surely you can understand the difference.”
I can understand that you are reaching to try to hook up loss of freedom with health care reform.
And it’s a crock.
“Second, you are completely missing the larger point that if the government is the single payer you by definition cannot be allowed to seek out or provide treatment outside the government system. I don’t get how you can possibly not get this. If food were nationalized tomorrow, and the grocery stores all became government grocery stores, and you had to buy your food there, you would certainly understand that your freedom to choose had been taken away. Health care is no different.”
What single payer, dude? That’s not being discussed. Get off the single payer idea – it’s not happening, unfortunately. I’m pretty damn sure I know why we aren’t getting it, too.
That’s beside the point.
Let’s propose a different hypothetical: there is in the same American city two universities: one is state one is private.
That’s pretty common and neither private nor state universities are suffering from a lack of applicants, despite the fact that the state school charges state residents let’s say $100 an hour vx. the private school that charges $500. There are always going to be people who want to pay the extra and go to the private school for any number of different reasons.
@QB…
Tell me how our military or highway depts are not a form of socialism? I gave you the clear example of socialism in national defense…The U.S. Army..Marines..etc..versus the the single payer form of national defense…Blackwater and other private contractors…
As for your survey of physicians supporting single payer here is but one of many…
The latest sign is a poll published recently in the Annals of Internal Medicine showing that 59 percent of U.S. doctors support a “single payer” plan that essentially eliminates the central role of private insurers.
Now perhaps it is you who need to learn the defintion of socialism and it’s hybrids…for example you probably refer to the P.O. as socialism which it clearly isn’t! The VA is the socialized health care delivery system in our country and virtually everyone, including conservative icon William Kristol who praised it profusely on TV recently..saying our Veterans deserve the best..no argument from me there…
And so QB…there are multiple surveys showing Docs in favor of a single payer system…one of which I’ve posted here..but there are many more and that sentiment by the way is growing not receding.
Now please answer my FACTUAL questions…not with as Tena points out another “crock”.
Its useful to keep in mind that the “insurance industry” and the “health insurance industry” are not equivalent.
From Yahoo Finance numbers, by Market Cap:
$386B Property and Casualty
$280B Life
$100B Health Care Plans [i.e. health insurance]
$ 38B Insurance Brokers
$ 35B Accident and Health (e.g. ALFAC)
$ 15B Surety and Title
So by market cap, with these quick numbers, health insurance is about 12% of the insurance market.
The Health Care Plan companies pay almost no dividends, and the overall profit margin (from Yahoo) is 3.3%. Payments to executives, board of directors, etc. is simply not enough to be material.
The largest companies (by market cap) are largely held by institutions and mutual funds (e.g. pension plans, 401Ks, IRA, etc):
United Health 33B 86%
Wellpoint 26B 88%
Aetna 14B 90%
CIGNA 9B 85%
Compare this for instance to:
GE 178B 50%, 7% profit margin
IBM 159B 61%, 13% profit margin
I find the “excess profits” arguments unconvincing. I’m enough of an engineer to be more attracted to the efficiency (%overhead)arguments. Just looking at the number of people doing back office work in a doctors office suggests things could be done better.
Bernie said:
“We could look at three statements from politicans and check them against the formulation above.
1) “enhanced interrogation techniques are effective and necessary”
2) Iraq presents an imminent threat to America
3) I don’t believe single payer, which I prefer, is possible at this point but I am hoping to get a public option passed.
Of these three, which hew closer to what we all understand as “truthful”?
Of these three, which one actually gives citizens a chance to decide for themselves how they wish their society to be organized?
Which among these three is coercive, authoritarian, and bespeaks the worst that governments and politicians might get up to?”
Let’s take a look at Bernie’s reasoning here. Shrodinger’s point to me was that I am obfuscating by talking about single payer, because the current Democratic bills would not institute single payer, and, ergo, reform would not involve single payer.
This was a point about whether politicians’ public statements about their own legislative and policy goals reliably indicate their true goals. Of the three questions posed by Bernie, two of course are not even within that category and little concern how accurately a politician is portraying his goals.
But Bernie is of course implying that statements 1 and 2 are untrue statements by politicians. Yet he does so in the context of trying to mock Scott for suggesting that politicians do not always tell us their true intentions. So we can readily see that Bernie has no point to make here except to make a smarmy comment by mocking Scott for saying something with which Bernie himself agrees. Bernie, you should just have said what you meant: Republicans lie, but Democrats don’t. Or, if that wasn’t your point, what in the world could it have been?
Now, what about Bernies’ specific examples? Statement number 2 is a fabrication. GWB did not say that Iraq was an imminent threat. He said it was a gathering threat. And Statement no. 3 is also a fabrication, but this time Bernie is putting in Obama’s mouth words he has not said. Barack Obama does NOT say that he favors single payer but doesn’t believe it is possible now. He now takes the position that he has “not said” he favors single payer, i.e., he has deliberatel tried to mislead people to believe that he has never advocated single payer. If he said what Bernie puts in his mouth, reform would be dead.
Bernie then asks which of the statements is most truthful and which is most authoritarian, coercive, etc. The first two statements are opinions. An accurate version of the third — Obama’s false claims that he does not favor single payer and is not seeking to achieve that goal — is clearly dishonest and in no way “gives citizens a chance” to make informed decisions about health care policy. Obama and the Democrats are not being truthful. They are being authoritarian and coercive, in Bernie’s parlance.
I feel this is how the progressive movement will end: progressives arguing in circles with people who don’t understand the words that they are using and being hit it the face with the realization that you are arguing with fantasy (what is freedom? what is liberty? how are those concepts compatible with people who believe that Americans should be enslaved to corporate interests just because those same persons fear socialism?). The President was right on Letterman last night, how does wanting to insure uninsured Americans equal fascism? Do people not get that by likening an American President to history’s evilest dictators that they are weakening the reality of what those monsters did and that by leveling the charge of “Socialism” at the President and Democrats that they are mainstreaming socialism?
“I feel this is how the progressive movement will end”
William, love – you just described how the conservative movement is committing suicide.
I believe that some of the right-wing extremists which oppose President Obama are also racially prejudiced and would prefer not to have an African-American president. But I don’t believe that all the people that oppose him on health care and all the conservatives are racist.
And I believe if he were white, every single person who opposes him now would be opposing him then.
…But this is a fight about whether we are going to basically keep making excuses for being the only wealthy country in the world that can’t figure out how to ensure everybody…
Let me put it this way. If Barak Obama were a white president, I believe virtually 100 percent of the people who oppose him on health care today would oppose him on health care anyway…
Very deftly handled (not that I’m surprised since this is the author of, “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is”). I think he’s right about all of it.
“Very deftly handled (not that I’m surprised since this is the author of, “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is”). I think he’s right about all of it.”
Baby, if there is one thing the Big Dawg is, it’s very deft with the English language.
Tena, I cross my fingers every night that I will wake up the next morning and you are right…
Though what I think we need is less fingers crossed and some version of adult Sesame Street to educate these boobs…
I don’t normally bother with this fellow but let’s just clear up something he is saying that is factually false and in being so, is a fine demonstration of how his assumptions have been happily and too easily gathered up from talking points meant to dis-inform.
“But it is inevitable that the governement would indeed exercise control not only over what physicians you could see but over what physicians are even available to treat patients, not to mention things like what medications and treatments are available.”
As this does not happen in Canada, the “inevitable” claim looks rather dull-of-noggin, does it not? While there, the range of my doctor choices was entirely up to me. No agency, no body, no individual ANYWHERE had input as to which doctors or how many doctors I might visit or gain services from. It never happened. I would see a doctor through using the yellow pages, calling a clinic, getting a referral (from my doctor) or multiple referrals.
Given that the fellow making this claim above simply believes what he hears/reads and cannot be bothered to take the time to find out if what he hears is true or not and as he cannot be bothered to question his own uneducated assumptions in such a manner, and because getting himself educated past necessary givens within his ideological framework, it’s not at all clear why we are talking with him.
Scott C said: “All politicians, all the time? Of course not. But, not surprisingly, you are trying to obfuscate the point.”
What I was doing was pointing out the complete uselessness of your generality. Generalities, precisely as you used that one, take the simple route of refusing to make differentiations and, as a consequence, do nothing other than obfuscate.
“The issue is not whether a given statement is or is not “truthful”. The issue is whether or not politicians will promote policies for unstated purposes. Of course they will.”
There’s your generality, again. All politicians? Lincoln equals Duke Cunningham equals Sarah Palin? Do they do it all the time or just some? How do you tell when they have covert intent? Do prior known dishonesties from individual A influence your judgement? Is it a fine thing to cover up your real intention on a matter of planning war or potentially illegal activity regarding prisoners of that war or is that undesirable? You are upset that Bush assured citizens “There are no war plans on my desk” when he’d ordered such plans six months prior? You’ve written about this where? You’re upset about insurance industry statements which are designed to convince citizens of one thing while their actual intent is something quite other (as Wendell Potter, who knows, describes it)? Or is this just fine with you?
“Your seeming adoration for majority rule is, again, touching, although really a matter of mere convenience for you rather than a principle, as we found out when I asked you about a majority imposing their religious beliefs on a minority.”
Equating policies or laws derived from exclusionary religious beliefs (or bigoted racial beliefs, as another similar example – ‘nigggers and chinks out of town by sundown’) with citizen decisions on how they might organize their medical insurance regimes is so dull-headed that I have no idea what you might conceive ‘democracy’ as meaning in the context of your own constitution, bill of rights and ‘government by representation’.
Bernie,
Really, you are so given to affectation that you refer to me as “the fellow”? Since you don’t normally bother with me, perhaps you should just go on ignoring me? Hmm? The truth is that I bother you because I understand enough of your pseudo-intellectual blather to expose you to your little gathering of sycophants here. You can’t have your audience here listening to such a “fellow” who knows your schtick. Using precious and stilted jargon doesn’t make bad reasoning persuasive, Bernie, it really doesn’t.
When the government is by law the sole payer, it by definition controls access to health care, and by definition controls who may provide it and on what terms. That those misguided or unfortunate souls who live under such as system lose awareness that they live under such control and limitation does not make it less so. Living subject to a single payer system, you are unaware of the other options and opportunities you are missing because . . . they are missing.
Just for example, when physicians effectively become civil servants with their incomes constrained by political decisions rather than market dynamics, you begin down the road to reducing the number of individuals who will even enter the profession.
“Given that the fellow making this claim above simply believes what he hears/reads and cannot be bothered to take the time to find out if what he hears is true or not and as he cannot be bothered to question his own uneducated assumptions in such a manner, and because getting himself educated past necessary givens within his ideological framework, it’s not at all clear why we are talking with him.”
You are laughable.
Bernie, your last paragraph pretty much describes the overall sensation of “Talking with Conservatives”. They believe everything they hear/read by someone they trust, assume that their opponents do the same, and operate from that assumption. That’s why we keep hearing about the “loss of freedom and liberty” if health care reform passes (Luntz, Limbaugh, Levin, Fox, and Beck use these buzzwords constantly), when obviously unbuckling health care from employment would mean an explosion of both freedom (the opportunity to do what one pleases) and liberty (the choice to do what one pleases).
Thus is the problem with feeding trolls: you are purposefully being led off-topic and into frustration so that you will give up your argument and be turned off the debate so that their side wins. This is grade school taunting, they are not trying to win by playing the game, they are trying to win by flinging poo.
Our health care is delivered provincially and so I can only speak for British Columbia but I know the systems are similar across Canada. Basically, each person pays $54 per month for all essential medical services; you pay nothing if you make less than $20,000 a year.
If you have a good health insurance plan through work, it will usually pay your monthly premium and cover you for additional services like eye care, physiotherapy, and psychiatry with annual limits on coverage (e.g. acupuncture treatments up to $600 per year) and subsidized costs on prescription drugs depending on the plan. There may be a small deductible for those “extras”, but you know beforehand what will be covered and what will not.
For that monthly $54 (and with no additional insurance), I have access to a family doctor whenever I need one, to walk-in clinics where doctors treat individuals on a first-come, first-served basis, and to emergency or standard medical care in hospital. And whether it is a quick diagnosis and prescribed antibiotics for an infected spider bite (me) or radical chemotherapy treatment, months of hospitalization and surgery for life threatening cancer (one of my closest friends) – there are no bills for that care.
You simply present your Care Card where you are receiving treatment identifying you as a resident of the province, and you are entitled to whatever care you need as determined by your doctor – not “the government” and not any insurance company. Of course, this care is not “free”. As Canadian citizens, we all pay for this incredible privilege of universal health care through our taxes, which are slightly higher than in the US. But I think about those MasterCard commercials from a few years back – “Peace of mind knowing that you and your family will never be financially ruined by health care bills? Priceless.” There was a long, hard political fight for universal health care in Canada. Man, was it worth it.
We can have that, too. This is what the rest of the wealthy democracies of the world do, each in its particular way.
There’s a reason the citizens of those countries don’t vote to create a system like ours.
On the merits? When did this happen? President Obama hasn’t gotten anywhere on his merits and he damn well knows it. They were going to make him a full professor at University of Chicago law school and he never even published a single scholarly article on the law. That is how legal scholars get professorships “on the merits”; that’s not the track they put Obama on. I wonder why?
This truly is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.
I see that at this hour Bernie has not responded to my dismantling of his intellectually dishonest screed about political lies. I am not surprised. Intellectual cowardice goes with grandiose delusions.
Bernie:
Generalities, precisely as you used that one, take the simple route of refusing to make differentiations and, as a consequence, do nothing other than obfuscate.
You mean like when you said “I think the demand for instant gratification is a feature of the young and inexperienced.”? How young? How inexperienced? All the young? All the inexperienced?
Or when when you said “But [conservatives] have become so extremist, so mad and so destructive as a force in the country…”? All conservatives? Which ones? All the time? How destructive and how mad? Such generalities.
Or when you said “the Republican Party has proved, since Reagan, to be neither honest nor adept at this aspect of governance.”? The entire population of the Republican party? Not honest at all? Not adept at all?
And this is just a sampling from a single random post on a single day.
Please Bernie. We all use generalities to make a point now and then. Doing so neither makes the point incoherent nor does it represent obfuscation. If you couldn’t grasp the point I was making, that is due to your intellectual failures, not mine.
Equating policies or laws derived from exclusionary religious beliefs…with citizen decisions on how they might organize their medical insurance regimes …
I never said anything about exclusionary relgious beliefs. I simply noted that a majority might pass laws based upon their religious beliefs…for example, they might outlaw the use of *** toys. You were entirely unable to provide a reason why majority rule should not prevail in this case, but should prevail in the case of nationalized medicine.
Again, Bernie, your appeal to what “the citizens” want is used by you merely as a convenience, not a principle.