a.SafaLab
The Neolibertarian NetworkHaving His SCHIP And Eating It Too
You have to love the vapid argument that Jay Stevens makes today at TheftInTheWest disputing what Montana Headlines (and others) have said about the SCHIP polling.
After the requisite intro info he says this:
Naturally, I object to the claim that those of us who support CHIP simply flog the “children” line.
Yep, he objects enough to having written this on Monday:
Certainly there are other reasons for opposing CHIP, but they’re mostly ideological, from starry-eyed rightie market idealists who would rather see kids die of tooth decay than admit the current health-care system ain’t working, and that the reasons for its failure find some, if not most, cause in the market itself.
No “flogging” there.
Then, he asserts himself as a having some sort of expertise:
I think I’ve done a good job demonstrating why health care costs are now too much for even middle class and professional families to bear, and that these costs are largely due to the insurance industry’s high deductibles and administrative inefficiencies and complexity in order to minimize the number of claims and maximize profit.
Really? Is that why the vast majority (something like 85%) of those that have insurance are either satisfied or very satisfied with their coverage? So the roughly 72% of the population that has insurance and is satisfied must be immune to the costs? That must be the stupid cohort. But beyond that I don’t think I’ve ever seen an actual analysis of expenses, premiums, et al that might suffice for a “good job (in) demonstration. If he has one I hope he can find the time point us to it.
Then there’s this:
To understand what I mean, take a look at the poll’s actual questions. First thing off, only 17 percent of respondents have followed the issue “very closely.” The rest – a whopping 83 percent — followed the issue “somewhat closely,” “not too closely,” or “not at all.” So we’ve got a group primed for not knowing the context of the subsequent questions.
But just last Monday he said:
However, conservative opposition to this bill makes little or no sense. On a political level, it’s suicide: CHIP polls well. Scary well.
So polls are relevant if they bolster your argument but irrelevant if they don’t? But then:
Then comes question number two: who do you trust more on the issue? Bush polls at 32 percent, the Democrats, 52 percent. “Neither” and “no opinion” poll at 15 percent. Okay, so far, so good. The poll supports the conventional wisdom on the popularity of the Democrats’ bill.
I’m sure he just instructed me that the poll was irrelevant. Curious, no? Alas:
Here’s the kicker: “As you may know, the Democrats want to allow a family of four earning about $62,000 to qualify for the program. President Bush wants most of the increases to go to families earning less than $41,000. Whose side do you favor?” This where the righties begin to gloat: now 52 percent of Americans side with Bush.
How did that happen? Simple. The question is leading.
Yep, those hacks at the Gallup Organization are again shilling for the right wing. In fairness, it’s probably not a good enough question to make a judgment call on for those 83% head-in-the-sand folks who present a pretty much “give a shit” opinion. If those ignorant only knew the reality!
What the polled didn’t know was that states are free to set the rates base on cost of living for their areas. Sixty-two thousand sounds like a lot to a Montanan. But to a New Yorker – where a three bedroom apartment sets you back over $3,000 a month — 62K is barely scraping by.
Jay’s $3 grand a month hyperbole aside I have two words for those New Yorkers: “Queens” and “Jersey.” – Jersey’s probably a better bet though since New York has the most draconian insurance regulation in the country and hence the highest premiums. Yet there’s more:
The bill essentially sets a ceiling through the use of financial incentives. The federal government would not pay a state its full SCHIP match for enrollees whose income exceeds three times the poverty rate – $61,950 for a family of four.
However, there is a clause that allows the current administration or future ones to consider a waiver request from the state of New York. That state sought a waiver to allow its residents to participate in SCHIP if their incomes fall below four times the poverty rate – $82,600 for a family of four. The bill leaves the discretion to grant that request to the secretary of Health and Human Services.
Get it? That’s a waiver for New Yorkers, and only if specifically approved by a Bush administration official.
The problem is that Bush will be out of office in about 15 months and this is a bill that goes on much longer. So when Hillera is POTUS (God forbid) New York has it made under the administrative rules. So the question for fiscal conservatives is; Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
One last point:
So I resent have this poll shoved in my face as proof that if people know the issue, they’ll back the president, when the only thing demonstrated by the poll is how well misleading statements by Republicans work to confuse the electorate
Better not make any statements that are contrary to Jay’s facts or your sure just a Bush shill. And whether Stevens knows it or not he just bolstered my argument about “the collective ignorance of the masses.” Maybe he’ll figure it out some day,
The real “misleading” is that this “expansion” of the program is just a way to get the middle class polity to accept that they belong to the cohort that is “entitled” to government paid health care. But as Stevens would say, the government is us. Some of “us” have a problem with that.
The information on this site is not intended as individualized investment advice and all investment decisions by a reader must in all cases be made by the reader either individually or together with his/her investment professional. The views expressed in articles appearing on this site are solely those of Dave Budge and should not be attributed to any other person or entity except where expressly stated.
Print This Post
I heard today that Bush’s approval ratings are now at 24%. I love watching you guys fall on your philosophical sword, and it’s good to get your basic bent out in the open for all to see. Like I say, I’m laughing all the way to the bank.
80% of us say insure than damned kids, and you guys are so blind to the failings of our current system – so intent on making the real world conform to your philosophy – that you can’t even bend. Not a little bit. That’s a recipe for permanent minority status. Only vote fraud will save you.
I hate to tell this Mark but no one is saying that “the kids” shouldn’t be insured. We’re talking about the scope of the program. Get it?
Secondly, who gives a shit about Bush’s approval rating? The guy is lame duck.
Last, I’ve been a member of the permanent minority for several years now. This is, unless you know some planks on the GOP platform that include the legalization of drugs, prostitution, open borders, gay marriage, unabated free speech, the end of subsidies, etc.
So the “you guys” argument is kind of “crap” as far as I’m concerned. I can count the number of Republicans I voted for in the last 10 years on one hand.
Wow! Jay says kids are dying from tooth decay!
Free toothbrushes for every kid!
Free toothbrushes for every kid!
Free toothbrushes for every kid!
I’ve got to be more careful about the way I word things. “You” didn’t mean you personally, and you don’t need to go through the varieties of ways in which you disagree with Republicans. I’m aware of that, and I have similar experiences with Democrats.
Yes, we want to expand the coverage. I don’t see anyone jumping in with a plan to insure these kids – just as you are locked arm-in-arm around them to prevent anyone else from insuring them. You and the others of the minority of people blocking this effort are being obstructionists. And kids are suffering as a result. Kids. Sorry if the imagery is troubling, but that is what is going on.
I want to see this government program expanded becuase the private sector is deficient. On that we disagree. We see the world differently. Obviously I think my viewpoint more realistic, yours an effort to make an unruly world conform to your idealistic philosophy.
So if you are going to block a government solution, you must forsake any sort of government support in solving the problem of uninsured kids. Let’s be forthcoming now. Give us what you’ve got.
Mark, you’re making a false argument here. Those who are “obstructionists” a largely not against the program at all. They are against expanding the program to the point where it becomes a disincentive for people to enter into insurance contracts in the market place. So you’re meme that no one is jumping in with an alternative plan is simply wrong. The Bush administration has offered an alternative plan which expands the program by 20%.
I have embraced a host of other plans, as you know, that change the employer sponsored system (which, IMO is a major source of unfairness) but I haven’t the inclination to rehash that right now. But you assert that we want to “prevent anyone else from insuring them” is dogmatic Democratic nonsense.
Here’s the reality about my opinion. Because the government has developed so many “solutions” over time, the ongoing rent seeking by organizations like the AMA, the price controls put up by a market that is 40% controlled by a socialized system (Medicare & Medicaid), a hodgepodge of insurance mandates placed on insurers by state regulators, the system has failed. But it has not largely failed as a consequence of the market. It has failed as a consequence of inflexable “government solutions.”
The over-expansion of this bill is just another example of a government program that likely will harm others and will benefit doctors. Since most of these plans are run by BC/BS, which is “owned” by the participating doctors and hospitals, there are incentives here for mischief that go unreported. And for all of that wail against corporatism and special interests, it blows me away that you can’t see that some will substantially profit from this program that takes market pricing pressure and shifts it to another cohort.
I don’t see a private system of health care being feasible, for reasons often mentioned before – that profit is incompatible with delivery of service to everyone, sick and well alike. I see you taking great pains to blame the failings of private sector health care on government while taking full credit for its many successes. I believe your thinking on the subject to be more akin to rationalization. I see you as unwilling to face failure of the marketplace to deliver what we need, and the success that other countries have had in making the delivery.
I think our disagreement is bedrock. In the end, each side will have to yield and there will be some sort of blending of private and public sectors in our efforts to extend quality health care to everyone. One can only hope that we get the best that each side has to offer.