He who learns must suffer. Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, and against our will, comes wisdom by the awful grace of God.
~ Aeschylus
Friday, February 26, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Evan Bayh
Excellent Newsweek article on Bayh's decision to leave the Senate. I knew nothing about him before this week, which shows how little I follow politics. He seems like the kind of guy we should have more of in DC.
Two words rejected
I hear two words overused right now in the political debate and would like to send them both to the penalty box for a while.
The first: Referendum.
In 1994, the Republicans were dumb enough to believe that the landslide victory they enjoyed in the midterm elections was a referendum on their agenda - the contract with America. It was a referendum - one of confidence in the president at the time, Clinton, and his broad-sweeping healthcare reform plan.
Last year, the Democrats made the same mistake and still haven't figured it out. The landslide last year was a referendum on Bush, not on big government. In fact, Bush was big government, so if anything the referendum was on shrinking government. It was not a mandate (the also-popular synonymous cousin of referendum) to increase deficit spending to drive an expansionist agenda.
I doubt I have a politician who reads here, but just in case, please remember that when there's a landslide election victory, most people are running FROM something, not TOWARD something.
The second: obstructionism.
Any time one party or another can't get bipartisan support for a policy, the other party is labeled overly partisan, or obstructionist. Don't get me wrong - many times there is obstructionism for obstructionism's sake and is really bad for the system. However, the term has been so overused it has become meaningless and cliche. If a group of politicians stands against a policy long enough that the people want passed, they won't be politicians for long. Many if not most of the times I've heard the term used lately (as well as during the 90s when the shoe was on the other foot), what's really happening is that the group in power is trying to force through unpopular policies and can't get votes. Instead of name-calling, they might be better served by moderating their policies to get the votes, particularly those of moderates within their own party.
Obstructionism and referendum, you've both been duly warned.
The first: Referendum.
In 1994, the Republicans were dumb enough to believe that the landslide victory they enjoyed in the midterm elections was a referendum on their agenda - the contract with America. It was a referendum - one of confidence in the president at the time, Clinton, and his broad-sweeping healthcare reform plan.
Last year, the Democrats made the same mistake and still haven't figured it out. The landslide last year was a referendum on Bush, not on big government. In fact, Bush was big government, so if anything the referendum was on shrinking government. It was not a mandate (the also-popular synonymous cousin of referendum) to increase deficit spending to drive an expansionist agenda.
I doubt I have a politician who reads here, but just in case, please remember that when there's a landslide election victory, most people are running FROM something, not TOWARD something.
The second: obstructionism.
Any time one party or another can't get bipartisan support for a policy, the other party is labeled overly partisan, or obstructionist. Don't get me wrong - many times there is obstructionism for obstructionism's sake and is really bad for the system. However, the term has been so overused it has become meaningless and cliche. If a group of politicians stands against a policy long enough that the people want passed, they won't be politicians for long. Many if not most of the times I've heard the term used lately (as well as during the 90s when the shoe was on the other foot), what's really happening is that the group in power is trying to force through unpopular policies and can't get votes. Instead of name-calling, they might be better served by moderating their policies to get the votes, particularly those of moderates within their own party.
Obstructionism and referendum, you've both been duly warned.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Health Care Moving in the "Right" Direction
Ryan's plan appears worth studying.
Summary, grabbed from Heritage:
1. Changing the Tax Treatment of Health Coverage
Current tax treatment of health insurance gives preference to employer-based coverage by making benefits tax free to the employee and the employer alike. Obviously, this tax policy only benefits those who receive coverage through their employer. It benefits those who also have the biggest benefit packages, usually, but not always, the wealthy. Ryan’s “Roadmap”replaces this inequitable system through creating a system of refundable tax credits of $2,300 for individuals and $5,700 for families for the purchase of health coverage. As Heritage experts have pointed out this will transform the market to respond to patients’ needs, allow portability of insurance between jobs, and further the goal of universal access.
Replacing the tax exclusion with a health care tax credit would not only help the middle class buy insurance and extend coverage to the uninsured; it would also set in place powerful incentives to reduce the rapid growth in health care expenditures…individuals and families will have the ability to choose the health plan they want, own it, and take it with them from job to job. This tax credit would also have the added benefit of allowing individuals and families to decide how much of their compensation comes to them in the form of health insurance
2. Promoting State- Based Reform and Exchanges
The Ryan “Roadmap” would create a Federal-State partnership to help states that wanted to do so create State Health Insurance Exchanges, featuring high-risk pools combined with guaranteed access to care with affordable premiums. A state health insurance exchange can be designed many different ways. The key question is what is the objective of such an exchange. For consumers who want to own and control their health insurance, and take it with them from job to job, a properly designed state exchange, as Heritage’s Robert Moffit argues, can make it easy for employees , especially those in small businesses to compare and buy affordable health plans. It can unleash the free market forces of choice and competition. An exchange designed to restrict health options, as is now being promoted by the Left, is just another regulatory roadblock to personal freedom.
3. Allow Interstate Purchasing of Health Coverage
Congressman Ryan’s proposal would also allow individuals to use their refundable tax credits towards the purchase of health insurance policies in any state. As Moffit explains, interstate competition would lead to broader and more intense competition, greater personal choice and more affordable coverage, and would secure value for consumers’ dollars.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office evaluated Congressman Ryan’s Roadmap favorably, finding that “[The health insurance tax credit] could impose significant downward pressure on… the growth of overall spending on health care.” The Roadmap would also reform Medicare, putting it on more solid fiscal ground and molding it into a more consumer-driven system.
Summary, grabbed from Heritage:
1. Changing the Tax Treatment of Health Coverage
Current tax treatment of health insurance gives preference to employer-based coverage by making benefits tax free to the employee and the employer alike. Obviously, this tax policy only benefits those who receive coverage through their employer. It benefits those who also have the biggest benefit packages, usually, but not always, the wealthy. Ryan’s “Roadmap”replaces this inequitable system through creating a system of refundable tax credits of $2,300 for individuals and $5,700 for families for the purchase of health coverage. As Heritage experts have pointed out this will transform the market to respond to patients’ needs, allow portability of insurance between jobs, and further the goal of universal access.
Replacing the tax exclusion with a health care tax credit would not only help the middle class buy insurance and extend coverage to the uninsured; it would also set in place powerful incentives to reduce the rapid growth in health care expenditures…individuals and families will have the ability to choose the health plan they want, own it, and take it with them from job to job. This tax credit would also have the added benefit of allowing individuals and families to decide how much of their compensation comes to them in the form of health insurance
2. Promoting State- Based Reform and Exchanges
The Ryan “Roadmap” would create a Federal-State partnership to help states that wanted to do so create State Health Insurance Exchanges, featuring high-risk pools combined with guaranteed access to care with affordable premiums. A state health insurance exchange can be designed many different ways. The key question is what is the objective of such an exchange. For consumers who want to own and control their health insurance, and take it with them from job to job, a properly designed state exchange, as Heritage’s Robert Moffit argues, can make it easy for employees , especially those in small businesses to compare and buy affordable health plans. It can unleash the free market forces of choice and competition. An exchange designed to restrict health options, as is now being promoted by the Left, is just another regulatory roadblock to personal freedom.
3. Allow Interstate Purchasing of Health Coverage
Congressman Ryan’s proposal would also allow individuals to use their refundable tax credits towards the purchase of health insurance policies in any state. As Moffit explains, interstate competition would lead to broader and more intense competition, greater personal choice and more affordable coverage, and would secure value for consumers’ dollars.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office evaluated Congressman Ryan’s Roadmap favorably, finding that “[The health insurance tax credit] could impose significant downward pressure on… the growth of overall spending on health care.” The Roadmap would also reform Medicare, putting it on more solid fiscal ground and molding it into a more consumer-driven system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
