There is a growing sentiment of displeasure with the current health care legislation. Some of it comes from conservatives on the right who are fighting an ever expanding federal government. Some is coming from a segment of the population that has finally woken up to the reality that Obama is not a centrist Democrat. And I think we even have some displeasure from those who took a few too many sips from the big man in red. After all, he did come to Washington with the promise of change. He would change the atmosphere into a bi-partisan utopia where we can all come together and fix our nations problems. I would say the only ones who still believe that are on a little more than Kool-aid. The unraveling of their health care reform has revealed the true character of this administration. They have been backed into a corner with numerous failed policies and they are now fighting back with Chicago style politics that are just as dirty as any in Washington. The real source of this defensive posture to any criticism of their policies is not right wing extremists, but rather because these policies are not working. And the fact that these ‘spend our way out of a recession’ policies are not working should come as no surprise to anyone with a healthy knowledge of American history. Take the following quote.
“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work….I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises….I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot!” – Henry Morgenthau Jr., Secretary of the Treasury to FDR and architect of the New Deal.
This, of course, has not kept our President from praising his own efforts to strengthen the economy. Just last week he told supporters from his civilian army, Organizing for America, that the economic stimulus had made an “enormous difference”. Let’s look at the facts. A conservative estimate shows that only 12% of the stimulus was allocated for things that could be construed as means for true economic growth. The unemployment rate has skyrocketed despite the stimulus, with the economy shedding another 2.8 million jobs since its passage. In New Hampshire, 700 of the 796 jobs created with the stimulus were government jobs. Some one can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Obama assured them that 16,000 jobs would be created with the stimulus. Then you have to look at the common sense aspect of how much money has actually been spent. The number stands at about $70 billion. Economics professor Mario Rizzo put it this way: “what is the mechanism by which about $70 billion in extra spending reduces the rate of increase in unemployment and reduces the rate of decrease in output in a $14 trillion economy? If my advanced arithmetic is correct this is ½ of 1 percent of the GDP. What kind of Super Multiplier is that?” So no wonder more and more people are questioning what the President and Congress have to say about a health care bill that will cost more than 2 trillion dollars. It is also why I believe we are seeing more politics than solutions in the debate. The far left want their legislation passed and just were not expecting so much resistance. The political strategies resulting from this resistance is what I would like to highlight today.
The first is the most obvious and is why I have disdain for politicians in general. This is the concept of talking in generalities, talking around questions, and giving answers that are misleading and untruthful. Obama is an absolute expert at this. Let’s break down an example from one of his so called town hall meetings on health care.
Question: Mr. President, you’ve been quoted over the years — when you were a senator and perhaps even before then — that you were essentially a supporter of a universal plan. I’m beginning to see that you’re changing that. Do you honestly believe that? Because that is my concern. I’m on Medicare, but I still worry that if we go to a public option, period, that the private companies, the insurance companies, rather than competing — because who can compete with the government; the answer is nobody. So my question is do you still — as yourself, now — support a universal plan? Or are you open to the private industry still being maintained?
Answer: What we’re saying is, if you don’t have health care, then you will be able to go to an exchange similar to the menu of options that I used to have as a member of Congress, and I can look and see what are these various private health care plans offering, what’s a good deal, and I’ll be able to buy insurance from that exchange. And because it’s a big pool, I’ll be able to drive down costs, I’ll get a better deal than if I was trying to get health insurance on my own…Now, I recognize, though, you make a legitimate — you raise a legitimate concern. People say, well, how can a private company compete against the government? And my answer is that if the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining — meaning taxpayers aren’t subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services and a good network of doctors, just like any other private insurer would do — then I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time.
First, I would like to say that I only took a small portion of Obama’s answer. I could show you at least 3 additional misleading statements from his entire answer, but I would probably put you to sleep. (If I have not already). So here we go. In his answer he compares the exchange created with the current legislation to Congress’ current plan. The only problem is that Congress’ plan includes an exchange of private insurance. There is no government run option in the exchange. So if this exchange works to drive down costs and creates healthy competition, then why has Obama insisted upon the inclusion of a public option? The only possible answer is there is an alternative motive. This motive is the left’s desire for a single payer system. Anyone who has followed the health care reform debate before this election knows that the public option was a major compromise for many liberals. And the only reason they accepted it was because they understand that it can lead to the health care system that they really want. The second point of contention I have with the President’s answer is his assertion that a public option would be self-sustaining and would compete on equal ground with private insurance. First of all, by definition, any government program is a subsidized entity. Otherwise the government would not be needed…ie Postal Service. Seeing that Obama is Ivy League educated, to me he has crossed the line from misleading to untruthful. Anyone on the public plan who cannot afford it would have to be subsidized. Secondly, the private and public options are not on equal competitive ground. As pointed out in one of my previous posts, the public option would be exempt from many of the taxes that a private plan would incur. History has also shown that such entities have a competitive advantage. The perfect example is Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. And you see how that worked out for us. This small example of how Obama talks his way out of truthfully answering a question illustrates why my head nearly explodes everyday from listening to him. Probably because I was raised to be a little more honest than that.
Now that I have covered the underlying theme of all politicians, I would like to concentrate on the actual process that we have seen unfold before our eyes. Health care reform is the one issue that everyone agrees needs to be addressed, but obviously there are two opposing ideas on how this should be accomplished. Liberals want more government control over the private industry to include insurance and drug companies. Conservatives want things such as Tort reform, Medicare fraud prevention measures, and an exchange with only private insurance. During the campaign Obama promised that all ideas would be taken into consideration and a bi-partisan compromise would be reached. However, once he was elected the true strategy was unleashed as Republicans were locked out of the writing of the legislation. The only way they have had influence is through proposed amendments right before the recess. As you can see by this list, the majority of them have been shot down.
Even before the draft legislation was written, President Obama set a deadline to have it on his desk before the August recess. This drew fire from people on both sides of the aisle. What is the rush? Why not take our time and get the reform right? Why not tackle the issues with the existing programs first? These questions were ignored and the phrase “Rahm it through” emerged. The truth of the matter is that this was the strategy all along and I believe it had more to do with the influence of Ezekiel Emanuel than Rahm Emanuel. Ezekiel Emanuel’s book on health care reform described the politics behind what liberals want to do and offered this advice. Do not try incremental reform. Do not get boggled down in the details, speak in general terms. And rush the legislation through as fast as possible. Sound familiar? I also believe that Obama knew there would be some trouble pushing through legislation with this much government expansion. What Obama lacks in common sense and character, he makes up for a hundred fold in his knowledge of politics and manipulation. If they could have gotten legislation signed before recess, he knew they would have avoided the recent town hall massacres. But they did not and the opposition is growing just as it did with the stimulus. The response to this opposition has been denial. This denial has lead to the age old political strategy of the blame game. I will talk about this along with a few other diversions tomorrow in Part II.
Comments on this entry are closed.