Happy Birthday to Michael McKean, 66.
Good stuff; not too much, since some of you are going back to work today:
1. I've said that Ross Douthat has the hardest job in America: his job is to be a representative of real conservatives but also to tell the truth as he sees it, and even in the best of times those are going to clash, and these are not the best of times for the GOP (no NYT columnist is charged with being a real liberal; the point of having Tom Friedman on the op-ed page isn't lost if liberals disown him). Keep that in mind, and this one is extremely impressive. Also this one is correct, regardless of context.
2. Scott Monje's deep dive into the shutdown game.
3. And Sarah Kliff is counting ACA applications.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Douthat:
ReplyDeleteWhen was the last time you heard Ted Cruz calling for the repeal of Medicare Part D? I thought so.
I made the point a while ago that Part D was conceived as - ideally - a cost-saving measure, with the rise of new, large-molecule Rx interventions as a less-costly alternative for chronic care of the elderly. That is, I suppose, still the case.
But who's championing that sort of thing? Not Ted Cruz. Who's beating that drum? Do any of these guys really care about saving money, or are they just lining up their cushy sinecures, whistling past the graveyard as they go?
But who's championing that sort of thing? Not Ted Cruz.
DeleteRight, which is much to Cruz's credit, and it's the fundamental difference.
Democrats are an admixture of fantasists who think they are wise enough to think of - or at least wax enthusiastic about - technocratic policy solutions that they heard about from someone who went to a TED talk (large molecule Rx interventions!) that they earnestly claim will save money, in some weird triple-bankshot. Hence the hilarious claim that Obamacare and other similar handouts will "bend the cost curve." I think that in their heart of hearts these people know it's never going to work, but it would make them feel socially awkward to question this wisdom.
And then the other part of the coalition is just the open mouths gulping down the public weal. As Yandle said, Bootleggers and Baptists.
To be a Republican is to know you will always be unpopular with the cocktail-party set, because you're willing to say unpleasant truths. To be a Republican is to recognise that these vast government schemes are - indeed, were always intended to be - costly boondoggles. To be a Republican is to recognise that the way to save money is to... gasp! ... spend less money, and there's no triple-bankshot way around that.
Ted Cruz is a Republican, and an American hero.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Delete(Comment zapped: one or more magic words)
DeleteAnonymous, your assessment sets up a false equivalence between "Rx maintenance of chronic conditions in the elderly" and "let them die on the street". Some on the right may favor framing the debate in that manner...
Delete...but as Douthat accurately notes, Ted Cruz ain't one of them. So if "letting Grandma die on the street" is off the table (curb?) - which it undeniably is for Cruz - then the question is how you will save money within the parameters you set, which is the type of question Cruz would never, ever address.
Its interesting that you attribute to Cruz heroism for the possession of traits that even the slightest reflection would reveal are thoroughly alien to his mentality.
Can it possibly be that difficult to detect when one is getting smoke blown up the proverbial arse?
Although I'll toss in one thing: to say that Republicans "will always be unpopular with the cocktail-party set" is at a remarkable level of wallowing in fictional victimization.
Delete...but as Douthat accurately notes, Ted Cruz ain't one of them. So if "letting Grandma die on the street" is off the table (curb?) - which it undeniably is for Cruz - then the question is how you will save money within the parameters you set, which is the type of question Cruz would never, ever address.
DeleteOn the contrary, the Republican party published, through Paul Ryan, a long-term budget plan that provided a clear strategy for dealing with the out-of-control spending that Democrat guzzlers and profligate centrists have bequeathed us. No-one wants to "let grandma die in the street," and it's a typical leftist slur that that's the result of allowing a proper free market to flourish in healthcare (and the Ryan plan is just a step in that direction).
If the government was running half of the food supply and strangling the rest with idiotic regulation, no doubt there'd be huge innefficiencies, constant delays and rampant corruption. And no doubt the leftists would denounce allowing people to freely buy food in supermarkets as "letting grandma starve in the street." It's the typical anti-market, anti-freedom hysteria on which the Party of the (word I can't say) is built.
It is an interesting sociological question as to why Ted Cruz enrages Democrat opinion so. No doubt it reflects well on him, and badly on them.
If the government was running half of the food supply and strangling the rest with idiotic regulation, no doubt there'd be huge innefficiencies, constant delays and rampant corruption. And no doubt the leftists would denounce allowing people to freely buy food in supermarkets as "letting grandma starve in the street." It's the typical anti-market, anti-freedom hysteria on which the Party of the (word I can't say) is built.
DeleteThe mythical free-market cure-all snake oil BS is so typical of unthinking fact-free AynRandianism that is destroying this country. Markets need regulation. Otherwise, they don't exist. Econ 101. Go back to kindergarten.
Med D - which is, in fairness, not entirely private - is nevertheless a fair bit more *private* then parts A or B. You assert that Paul Ryan has presented a "clear" roadmap to how Grandma's necessary medication will be provided using the magic of the private sector - presumably, moreso than Part D already does - and do so much more effectively and at significantly less cost.
DeleteFor curiosity, will you please flesh out that "clear strategy", for the uninitiated, in three paragraphs or less?
The supermarket equivalent of the health insurance status quo would be if we repealed the Civil Rights Act and let supermarkets prevent certain classes of people from shopping at them.
DeleteWhatever one's opinion on Obamacare, comparing food to medicine is a joke. There is no "adverse selection" at the grocery store. People don't suddenly and unexpectedly find themselves with a choice of buying tens of thousands of dollars of groceries or dying.
Cruz is a hero? For what?
DeleteEven if you agree with him, he's done absolute zero to accomplish anything. The shutdown amounted to, as conservatives would phrase it, nothing more than a paid vacation. In reality, it did harm the US economy, slowed it's growth, and while a lot of that will come back, it had a net-harm with no zero benefits. The government is still here. And no, this wasn't a situation where Cruz could have won, if only they'd been willing to stand firm.
Meanwhile, if the default had succeeded, that too would have done little of actual benefit. It wouldn't have changed any of the laws of this country, but also would have harmed the economy.
That seems to be all Cruz has accomplished, or could accomplish with these stunts. So, presuming you agree with his goals, you really need to change your tactics. He's demonstrated quite clearly that he's nothing but a failure.
As long as you prioritise "heroic" stands and drama over governance, Republicans will fail to accomplish what you want.
It occurred to me today, as we await that easy-to-understand explanation for Paul Ryan's "superior" plan for delivering pharma to the elderly, that Part D arguably is the private sector solution to the problem.
DeleteThe government is involved in Part D, sure. That's a byproduct, of course, of the expense of those medications, which exceeds the means of many of the elderly. You could argue that the government shouldn't be involved at all, but that leads you right back to the old folks dying on the street meme.
So if old folks aren't allowed to die on the street, the gov't has to pick up the slack. Which the government does, in Part D, but it does so on the demand side, there are no price controls, or other manufacturer restrictions, there's just help paying when the burden gets too high.
This Ryan magic of a *better* private sector solution than Part D to providing medicine to the elderly....its kind of fascinating. In the same way as a zen koan, come to think of it.
You know full well (or should do, at the least), that Ryan proposed vouchers for Medicare, turning Medicaid into a block grant to the states, and limiting spending increases by a more sensible formula. See here - this stuff isn't exactly a big secret. Is this a truly free market? No, because it's still too much government involvement, but we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, we have to make incremental steps in the right direction.
DeleteMany thanks!
ReplyDeletePretty damn good, too.
DeleteVery little coverage of plummeting economic confidence. No biggie? Do this bounce back immediately with no repercussions?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.gallup.com/poll/151550/Gallup-Daily-Economic-Confidence-Index.aspx
Hey, I called that the debt ceiling would be lifted and the government restarted on Oct. 16!
ReplyDeleteOf course, I also predicted that Nancy Pelosi would get immigration reform, which didn't happen. And that Boehner would lose his job, which also didn't happen. So I'm 2 for 4.
No, actually, the context of that second Douthat piece does make it wrong, or at least besides the point. Even if liberals have made policy gains, in terms of outcomes they've regressed. Income inequality is greater, we're still stuck with a combination of high unemployment and low inflation, and we're drilling more oil than ever. So, in terms of policy change, maybe there's been some stuff conservatives don't like. But in terms of outcomes, the "let them eat cake" and "drill baby drill" crowds should be absolutely thrilled.
ReplyDeleteIn your typology, I guess I am a "let them eat cake" Republican, and I am not at all thrilled by the recent direction of public policy. In 2012, the top rate on capital gains was 15%. In 2013, between the "fiscal cliff" deal and the Obamacare 3.8% surtax on high earners, it is 23.8%. That's a substantial tax increase!
DeleteCapital gains taxes are higher, sure, though not as high as in the mid-90s. But the context is that wealth and income are concentrated like never before. Looking at policy in a vacuum, conservatives might be unhappy. But looking at the outcomes that our policies are responding to, the wealthy should be delighted.
DeleteSorry, last anon@2:05 was me.
DeleteTheda Skocpol on the Tea Party now:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.salon.com/2013/10/17/tea_partiers_grave_fear_why_they_disdain_young_people_even_their_own/
Zizek on the shutdown
ReplyDelete