Imagine that you are walking down the street and a man whom you have never seen approaches you. “Hey man, I think that you should give me $10,000.” Puzzled, you respond, “Um, I don’t really want to give you anything.” He looks at you in disdain, accuses you of being an obstructionist, and then says, “Fine, I can see that we disagree, but we need to work together towards a solution to this problem. I want $10,000; you want to give me nothing. Let’s compromise at $5,000.” Believing in compromise, you hand the man a check for $5,000 and walk away, glad that you decided to not be stubborn, but to compromise. That way, you both win.
Imagine that you and your friend are hungry. You are short on cash and so do not want to eat out, but cook your own food at home. Your friend, on the other hand wants to eat at the Olive Garden. Finally, in the spirit of compromise, you go to eat at Burger King. That way, you both win.
I am SO SICK of hearing about Congress and the need for bipartisanship. Bipartisanship is a completely bogus idea. Now that is not to say that I do not agree with compromise or that I do not wish to see the two parties come together when they can. But that is not what usually happens when people are clamoring for bipartisanship. The two examples above are exactly what people who want bipartisanship want to see.
Take the first example. Two people want diametrically opposing things. Middle ground is not really middle ground. The man with the money who wants to pay nothing will not be satisfied with only paying $5,000. The man receiving may have been willing to make concessions, but he did not give up anything of his. He had no right to anything; this was not a loan—it was a gift. The man who paid may have only paid less, but he completely went against his principles and what he believed in. This is exactly what happens when Republican cowards get in bed with socialist Democrats (not really in a nonpartisan mood right now).
Republicans on principle do not want socialized medicine; most Democrats do. Democrats naturally want Republicans to get on board with the plan and may argue that this is not socialized medicine, but merely a plan to make sure that all Americans have insurance. People with private plans will be able to keep theirs (naturally if employers can save money by dropping plans and allowing employees to go on the public plan and paying the fines, socialized medicine would result, but still...). This is NOT a compromise. Republicans want none; Democrats want all. Like my first example, this benefits the Democrats and completely violates what Republicans want.
Compromise only works where the positions of the parties are not mutually exclusive. You cannot have some socialized medicine and have no socialized medicine. Any amount of socialized medicine is counter to the principles of the Republican Party (or should be anyways).
People should propose the bill and allow the chips to fall where they do. If the democrats pass “health care reform” and it fails, they get the blame and Americans know where a party stands. If it succeeds, Democrats get all the credit. If it succeeds, Republicans will take the heat for not passing it (and preventing it from becoming an economic success like Medicare and Social Security...er...um...). If it fails, Republicans can stand up and say, I was against it. That is the way party politics should work.
Finally as by way of example, think of the problems that John Kerry has against Bush in 2004. How on earth could he run against the war in Iraq having voted against it? Had he voted against it from the start, he could point to the Republicans and say that it was their war instead of having to explain why he, Hilary Clinton and many other Democrats supported the war, but now call it the biggest mistake on the planet (besides “Bush lied, people died”, blah, blah, blah).
I think Republicans should stop pandering to Democrat voters and stand on principle. I think Democrats should stop acting moderate and just try to join the EU socialists. That would give people a clear distinction and let the American voters vote according to what they want.
6 comments:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25218.html
Here is the perfect example of what I am talking about:
“On something as important as health care you would think people would be interested in working together,” Reid told reporters Tuesday. “Republicans aren’t interested in working with Democrats. That’s pretty clear.”
Of course they are not interested!!! If Democrats were trying to figure out a way to make Health Care more affordable (removing mandates for coverage which result in the young subsidizing the old; opening up insurance so that it can cross state lines; replacing current insurance plans (pre-paid medicine) with actual insurance; bring market forces into the programs by removing so much third party payer plans;...), Republicans might join in. Instead Democrats want to push forward on the plan which will inevitably result in socialized medicine and wonder why the party that opposes socialized medicine does not join?!? Hmmmm...let me think....
I know I'm putting myself on the line of fire, but why not make insurance a non-profit instead of a money making scheme? Then maybe our money would be used to actually pay for medical expenses rather than the company and possibly poor people could afford it too. Or maybe pay cash for routine treatments and a small amount each month for the unexpected. Socialized medicine is definitely not the answer. I know because I've experienced it.
Thanks for commenting. You make valid points, Kari. As for the non-profit nature of insurance, I only ask why nobody has a problem with life, fire, car, home, or renters' insurance making a profit? Naturally, health insurance could be argued to be more important, but I would argue that what we call health insurance is not really health insurance. Health insurance for most people is exactly what people should not have.
Take your car insurance, for example. The car insurance does not usually pay the first dollar for a wreck; they pay the last dollar. This is why we have a deductible. If it is below a certain amount, it's entirely on us. With health insurance, though, people want first dollar coverage, which ultimately means that many people do not have last dollar coverage. My student plan, for example, only covers me up to a certain point. After that, it's all on me. This is essentially what you argued about paying for simple stuff. Physicals, routine check-ups, and even basic exams after injuries should all have a price system: we could look at our doctor and if it is too expensive, go somewhere else. When we have no co-pay (or a very low one), we can go as often as we want with absolute ignorance as to the cost.
So, what does this have to do with cost? Because the consumer does not actually pay the bill, we have no idea how much something costs and probably overuse medical services (too many visits, too many tests, and too much repetition). As a result, the doctor can bill our insurance at high costs and the insurance has to pay it. If we paid it, on the other hand, we would draw a line after which point we would forgo some medical services. We could then pay for actual insurance and the insurance companies would make their profits just like other insurance: those who don't get very sick would pay lots of money for no return and would outnumber the few who cost the company money. It sounds weird, but works in every other form of insurance. The real problem is not profit, but third party payers.
Milton and Rose Friedman, economists, wrote a book called Free to Choose. In this, they analyze that there are four ways to spend money:
1) Spend our money on ourselves.
- This is highly effective as we are most likely to find a good balance between value for ourselves and cost for ourselves.
2) Spend our money on others.
- This will be slightly less effective as we worry less about what others want, but still will be pretty effective as its our money. We will keep costs low.
3) Spend other people's money on ourselves.
- This is less effective because we will care a lot about value, and very little about cost (hint, this is our current health insurance system).
4) Spend other people's money on other people.
- This is the least effective because neither cost nor value mean much to us. (This is essentially our government ans why government waste will never truly be eradicated.)
Sorry for the long answer Kari, but I agree with much of what you say. I just don't think that profits are the problem (http://www.healthinsurancecolorado.net/blog1/2009/06/08/profitability-and-the-health-insurance-industry/). I think the system is.
Hope I didn't shoot you for standing in the line of fire. If we changed the system to true insurance, then maybe we could worry if profits got to high.
Good point. There is an interesting segment on 20/20 about medicare and how the younger generation is paying for older people regardless of their wealthy status. It's just like you mentioned in #4. It's like 6 minutes long.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=7522306&page=1
There is a bunch of other good stuff there too.
It is amazing how politicians have redefined what compromise is. I have always understood compromise to have two parts. The first, is that you do need to meet somewhere in the middle, which technically government does on most issues, the second is that it requires sacrifice on both parts. The left has sacrificed nothing, while the right continues to sacrifice its principles. There is no true compromise.
What is going on in Washington is a lot more similar to what goes on when I visit Tijuana Mexico. The vendors there have a crappy product with an outrageous price tag on it. They know I am going to come to the table to barter with them. That is why the price tag is so high. They know that by the time I am done bartering they are going to have sold me a product for something lower than the listed price. This is acceptable to them, they got what they really wanted out of it and did not have to sacrifice anything. The left does the same thing. They create legislation that is way out of the ballpark. by screaming about unity and bipartisanship. Republicans "compromise" and in the end the liberals still have a homerun, the only difference is that the ball just cleared the fence instead of leaving the park. They still have the homerun and the points, and republicans have once again still lost the game
I completely agree, bipartisanship is a bunch of crap. Conservatives need to stand up for Conservative values, not settle for Liberal Light.
Post a Comment