Bill Clinton vs The Do-Nothing Democrats

I'm not going to give Slick Willie too much credit, but Bill Clinton and Paul Ryan had a remarkable conversation:

“So anyway, I told them before you got here, I said I’m glad we won this race in New York,” Clinton told Ryan, when the two met backstage at a forum on the national debt held by the Pete Peterson Foundation. But he added, “I hope Democrats don’t use this as an excuse to do nothing.”

Ryan told Clinton he fears that now nothing will get done in Washington.

“My guess is it’s going to sink into paralysis is what’s going to happen. And you know the math. It’s just, I mean, we knew we were putting ourselves out there. You gotta start this. You gotta get out there. You gotta get this thing moving,” Ryan said.

Clinton told Ryan that if he ever wanted to talk about it, he should “give me a call.” Ryan said he would.

~~~

Mr. Clinton, with some passion, returned to the topic at the end of an hour-long interview. “I think the Democrats are going to have to be willing to give up, maybe, some short-term political gain by whipping up fears on some of these things — if it’s a reasonable Social Security proposal, a reasonable Medicare proposal. We’ve got to deal with these things. You cannot have health care devour the economy.”

~~~

The last thing Obama, Reid, and Schumer want before the election is one of their own elder statesmen — one who’s personally popular and famous for budget-balancing, no less — pressuring them to inch out on the Medicare limb that’s cracking under Ryan. So … why would he do it? Could be that he’s earnestly concerned about the Medicare time bomb and appreciates Ryan’s leadership on it...

MORE HERE

Could the Democrats be persuaded to take the entitlement crises seriously?

Nah!

Their Hopium addiction is incurable.

May the best demagogues win!

Hat tip: Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

X-posted

Butter, Guns AND Corporate Welfare

via WSJ

Skeptics in the statist democrat media (and even some RINOs) say tea partyers can't be serious about tackling the federal budget deficit unless they're prepared to commit political suicide by decimating Social Security and Medicare immediately. Senator Rand Paul begs to differ:

My proposal would first roll back almost all federal spending to 2008 levels, then initiate reductions at various levels nearly across the board. Cuts to the Departments of Agriculture and Transportation would create over $42 billion in savings each, while cuts to the Departments of Energy and Housing and Urban Development would save about $50 billion each. Removing education from the federal government's jurisdiction would create almost $80 billion in savings alone. Add to that my proposed reductions in international aid, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and other federal agencies, and we arrive at over $500 billion.

My proposal, not surprisingly, has been greeted skeptically in Washington, where serious spending cuts are a rarity. But it is a modest proposal when measured against the size of our mounting debt. It would keep 85% of our government funding in place and not touch Social Security or Medicare.

Rand is prepared to slash spending in the Defense Department:

My proposal would also cut wasteful spending in the Defense Department. Since 2001, our annual defense budget has increased nearly 120%. Even subtracting the costs of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, spending is up 67%. These levels of spending are unjustifiable and unsustainable.

It's time to end corporate welfare:

Consistently labeled for elimination, specifically by House Republicans during the 1990s, one of Commerce's main functions is delivering corporate welfare to American firms that can compete without it. My proposal would scale back the Commerce Department's spending by 54% and eliminate corporate welfare.

We have two choices. Get serious about big cuts or make the kids work as indentured servants for the Chinese:

First, if you believe a particular program should be exempt from these cuts, I challenge you to find another place in the budget where the same amount can feasibly be cut and we can replace it.

Second, consider this: Is any particular program, whatever its merits, worth borrowing billions of dollars from foreign nations to finance programs that could be administered better at the state and local level, or even taken over by the private sector?

So will we do this or should we tell the kids to start learning Chinese?

Memeorandum thread

X-posted

Medical Economics for Dummies

Occasionally, a liberal blogger publishes a post that is so stupid, but so perfectly representative of the deranged thinking of the hard left, I have no choice but to respond. It's a dirty job, but somebody needs to do it.

Today Matthew Yglesias posted an ode to Medicare that typifies the willful ignorance of those who contend that a command-and-control economy will save us from the evils of the free market:

...it’s important to understand that [Medicare's] low reimbursement rates are a feature not a bug.

Try explaining that to patients who can't find a doctor who participates in Medicare! Yglesias ignores their plight...but he continues:

Probably the single most persuasive conservative critique of the social democratic agenda is that programs to provide public services have a tendency to become tilted in favor of the interests of public service providers rather than public service users.

I would argue that government-run "public service programs" tend to tilt not necessarily in favor of productive providers, but in favor of politicians and their crooked, politically powerful allies (see: ACORN, labor unions, etc.).

Yglesias builds his case:

Poor people have very little political clout in the United States, anti-tax activists have a lot of political clout in the United States, and public sector unions have a medium amount of clout. So when you set up a program to help poor people, the tendency is for it to be starved of revenue and also for the most powerful advocates for the program to be the providers rather than the clients, meaning that labor costs wind up being a big part of the bundle.

Wow. It almost sounds like liberal Yglesias is saying that public sector labor unions hurt poor people almost as much as stingy rich people do. Interesting...but here's Yglesias' main point:

Medicare is an important exception to all these trends. It’s not a program for poor people, it’s a program for old people. Including lots of old people with high levels of social capital and a large proclivity to participate in the political process. Consequently, there’s strong political pressure for generous benefits...

...there’s a reasonable amount of interest in getting as much health care services per dollar as possible. Consequently, providers are paid enough to make it worth their while to see Medicare patients, but much less than they’d like to make. The result is not a perfect program (far from it) but this particular aspect of Medicare is an example of big government at its best—serving clients’ interests rather than those of providers.

In the private sector, there is a delicate balance between the interests of the provider and the interests of the customer. This balance is constantly adjusted to changes in the market. If a greedy provider charges too much, customers will go elsewhere. If a stingy customer is unwilling to pay enough, the provider can sell the goods and services to another customer. With a competitive market, free from distortions created by power-hungry politicians, the harmony of interests keeps goods and services flowing freely at reasonable prices.

It’s win-win, not zero-sum.

Governments use low reimbursement is an insidious form of rationing. In the health care sector, it’s a form of rationing that will continue to create dire shortages of health care providers and health care resources.

Many on the political left seem to believe that legislators and bureaucrats will somehow be supremely effective, humane, rational, responsive and judicious if given the opportunity control our health care dollars. But legislators and bureaucrats are no more altruistic, beneficent or wise than are clinicians, hospitals and corporate executives. Politicians’ decisions are no less arbitrary, greedy or narrow-minded.

There is one fundamental difference between government and private entities: if you rely exclusively on government for your needs, you can’t shop around when your needs have not been met.

If Medicare is an example of big government at its best, we should all be afraid of big government. A system that “serves clients’ interests rather than those of providers” is no good. If the providers’ interests are slighted, the products and services will dry up. As our wasteful and inefficient Medicare system begins to go bankrupt, we are already seeing this happen. Because of low reimbursement rates and administrative hassles, physicians are opting out of Medicare in droves.

When government chooses winners and losers, the whole system crumbles.

More

The only doctor in town...Health-care reform hits a small-town reality: Even with insurance, you need somewhere to go.

Medicare Bankrupt in 6-8 Years Without Rationing

Is political self-interest nobler than economic self-interest?

Rich bureaucrats keep getting richer!

Medicare fraudsters rake in billions.

Mayo Clinic alone lost $840 million last year under Medicare.

Why isn't the GOP doing everything it can to stop ObamaCare?

Gov't Report… ObamaCare: Pay More, Get Less

A new report, provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (a nonpartisan government agency), provides more bad news for ObamaCare supporters. Key points:

1. Health care legislation the House passed last week would increase costs over the next decade by $289 billion.

2. Benefits to senior citizens would be slashed. In its current form, Obamacare would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and would jeopardize access to care for millions of others.

3. By 2019, health costs would rise to 21.1% of GDP compared to 20.8 under current law.

4. By 2014, Medicare Advantage enrollment would drop 64% from 13.2 million to 4.7 million because of less generous benefit packages.

Ace of Spades HQ sums it up well: "Hey old folks, they are coming for your health care!"

More

Washington Post: Government Report…Bill would reduce senior care.

Hot Air: Study shows ObamaCare would cut Medicare services, providers

Study: Yeah, The House Health Reform Bill Would Screw A Lot Of Things Up And As An Added Bonus...Raise Costs.

Obamacare Will Take a Bite out of Medicare

Via HotAir:

Does Linda Douglass know that Rep. Betsy Markey (D-CO) is spreading malicious myths about ObamaCare? Has anyone flagged Markey to the White House yet? The House Democratic caucus may need to be flagged after Markey’s local paper caught her admitting that Medicare benefits would have to be cut — for the greater good:

Some people, including Medicare recipients, will have to give up some current benefits to truly reform the nation’s health-care system, Rep. Betsy Markey told a gathering of constituents in Fort Collins on Wednesday.

Markey has repeatedly said during the August congressional recess that Medicare spending needs to be reined in to help pay for reforming the broader health-care system.

“There’s going to be some people who are going to have to give up some things, honestly, for all of this to work,” Markey said at a Congress on Your Corner event at CSU. “But we have to do this because we’re Americans.”

B-b-b-but President Obama said that was just a myth!

Flashback...

Obama: "Well, first of all, another myth that we've been hearing about is this notion that somehow we're going to be cutting your Medicare benefits. We are not. AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare, okay? So I just want seniors to be clear about this, because if you look at the polling, it turns out seniors are the ones who are most worried about health care reform. And that's understandable, because they use a lot of care, they've got Medicare, and it's already hard for a lot of people even on Medicare because of the supplements and all the other costs out of pocket that they're still paying.

"So I just want to assure we're not talking about cutting Medicare benefits. We are talking about making Medicare more efficient, eliminating the insurance subsidies, working with hospitals so that they are changing some of the reimbursement practices."

And remember this?

Obama: “I know there's been a lot of misinformation in this debate, and there are some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness, but I want everyone to know what health insurance reform is all about”

So set the record straight, Obama. How big a bite will ObamaCare take out of Medicare? What benefits will Medicare recipients be giving up?

My Christmas Gift for Obama

Obama is asking for a special gift for the holidays...the gift of ideas.  The daunting realities of our bureaucrat infested health care system are beginning to hit Obama hard, and he has apparently discovered that rhetoric is no substitute for ideas.  

Yes, Obama has a vague Utopian vision for the future of health care in America, but no concrete ideas.  The mechanisms by which Obama's dreams will be translated into hard reality have yet to be conceptualized.  This is where you and I come into the picture.  Obama is asking John Q. Public for help.  Here it is, straight from Obama's website: "Health care is a top priority for President-elect Obama, and he wants your help in reforming the system to provide quality, affordable health care for all Americans. That's why this holiday season, we're asking you to give us the gift of your ideas and input."   

You say you don't really know anything about health care? Don't worry, Obama doesn't need details—in fact he doesn't even WANT to get into details.  His health care czar, Tom Daschle, has made that abundantly clear. "Details kill," he told a meeting of about 500 health care industry executives on December 5 when speaking about the Obama plan. "Once we get started, let's finish and not languish."  But how do you reform the health care system in America without getting into details?  Daschle has it covered.  In his book, "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis," Daschle makes it very clear: "a Federal Health Board should be charged with establishing the system's framework and filling in most of the details. This independent board would be insulated from political pressure."  Reading between the lines: just ram a vague bill through Congress, and unelected Obama cronies will fill in the details later.  Deliberation and the democratic process are SO yesteryear.

Here's the framework of the Obama health care agenda: Through the magic of the Federal Government, Obama will provide a plan that strengthens employer coverage, makes insurance companies "accountable" and ensures patient choice of physician.  Don't worry about government interference; there won't be any.  Obama believes that government-run health care is wrong.  (He says so on his website.)  If you like your current health insurance, nothing will change, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year! If you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of shiny new, affordable health insurance options. Merry Christmas!

But that's as far as Obama has been able to get. Planning the health care revolution, with any degree of specificity, is above Obama's pay grade.  Have no fear Barack, unlike you, I have lots of ideas and suggestions. You asked for a holiday gift, I'm here to oblige.

• Get serious about Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).  HSAs entice people into the health insurance market, moving away from expensive all-inclusive coverage and toward less expensive, catastrophic coverage.  The tax-advantaged medical savings account is used for routine medical expenses. This contains costs by providing an incentive for judicious health care spending. People are in charge of their own money and keep the money they don't spend.
  
• Make insurance portable.  If the government is going to be in the business of subsidizing health care, tax credits should be directed to individuals and not to employers.  This would allow people the opportunity to shop around, and would allow them to change jobs without worrying about health insurance coverage.
  
• Allow people to purchase insurance across state lines.  With more options for consumers and more competition between insurance companies, prices would go down and services would improve.
  
• Get serious about tort reform: Patients should have access to legal remedies in cases of medical malpractice but the legal system needs to discourage endless, frivolous lawsuits. 
  
• Don't move toward socialist or government-run models of health care delivery.  You say you think government-run health care is wrong.  I agree.  Government-run health care leads to lower quality, higher prices and shortages of health care services.  For all practical purposes, Medicare and Medicaid amount to government-run health care, so don't expand Medicare and Medicaid.

Those are some of my ideas, Obama.  Run with 'em.

More

Obama Asks Nation for Input On Reforming Health System

The Obama-Biden Plan

Sign up to host a health care community discussion over the holidays

Control Your Own Health Care

U.S. says latest missile defense test a success

Are you outraged?  You should be.

Mug Shot Metamorphosis