Bush=Nixon?
December 29, 2003 2:18 PM   Subscribe

What if Bush is a Nixonian liberal?
posted by monju_bosatsu (47 comments total)
 
Very interesting read, thanks.
posted by alms at 2:27 PM on December 29, 2003


this is fun. here's mine: what if the moon is made of poured concrete?
posted by quonsar at 2:32 PM on December 29, 2003


What if frogs had wings?

What if pigs could fly?

The available evidence points away from any suitable definition of liberalism.
I totally disagree with the author that somehow the word liberal has negative connotations while conservative does not. It is to laugh.
posted by nofundy at 2:39 PM on December 29, 2003


It does get tiresome to hear of Left this and Right that and liberal but, and something of a conservative and on and on. Nixon, a guy I never cared for, seemes now, in reading his stuff, a bright if screwed up guy; Bush has hardly convinced me of his brightness. Whatever Bush may or may not be, he has run up a huge deficit, has many out of work (since Clinton years) and no prospects of a change in this, a larger govt which is what we were told conservative hate, has not done anything admirable about environment, and has convinced congress to go to war based on what has now turned out to be untrue. We may argue, fair enough, about how bad a guy Saddam was, but why then do we not take on Iran, China, North Korea, Syria, etc, with rulers and govts equally as bad?

Why bother com-aring him to this or that instead of just examining what the record shows?
posted by Postroad at 2:43 PM on December 29, 2003


What if?

He couldn't be more liberal on domestic spending and enlarging the federal government to unheard of nonsensical obesity.

But, he couldn't be better on defense.
posted by hama7 at 2:46 PM on December 29, 2003


I don't think he's very liberal or conservative. He's shown little interest in social issues either way, except where they play to his voter base. He's not interested in policy, the details of government. He doesn't seem to care about the fiscal side either.

What he is interested in is concentrating power in the executive branch (he's certainly not a Federalist), removing international restraints on US behaviour (has he signed a single treaty? how many has he abrogated?) and favouring corporate interests (Haliburton, the drug companies, big steel, ADM, etc...).
posted by bonehead at 3:10 PM on December 29, 2003


What if it were possible to discuss politics with Americans without resorting to meaningless and onfuscatory labels like 'liberal' or 'conservative' in the first 12 seconds?

Or : duh.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:17 PM on December 29, 2003


ob-, even.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:25 PM on December 29, 2003


Don't strain yourselves, but going back to the fact that Bush's Medicare bonanza is going to fatten the Medicare budget by trillions, could someone explain how the new (regrettably enormous) spending is a cynical "attack on Medicare"?

It's being inexplicably repeated everywhere that socialists rear their heads.
posted by hama7 at 3:28 PM on December 29, 2003


"We may argue, fair enough, about how bad a guy Saddam was"

Actually I think it's turned out that Saddam was a pretty good guy for the U.S.

He was a lightening rod for a lot of hatred and chaos which is focused squarely at the U.S. now that he's gone. And for all that it was surprisingly cheap to keep him completely under control. Not to mention the great job he did at keeping terrorists out of his country. With his goons out of the way Iraq has turned into a nightmare in terms of terrorism. And it turns out he was cooperating with us almost 100% even if he was more than a little belligerent.

He may have been very bad for Iraqis, but he sure was good for the U.S.
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:32 PM on December 29, 2003


It's being inexplicably repeated everywhere that socialists rear their heads.

everywhere you go, maybe.
posted by quonsar at 3:40 PM on December 29, 2003


The recent medicare bill isn't an attack on entitlements (what a curious word that is), but about getting the US taxpayers to pay full price on brand-name drugs for the elderly. It's not about social policy at all, it's corporate welfare.
posted by bonehead at 4:21 PM on December 29, 2003


Ever wonder why the whole Conservative/Liberal argument even comes up.
I think Its the Freedom versus Control issue.
One side has different ideas on what should be limited and what should be protected than the other.

And ALL of us have even different ideas on what each side represents

For ME (right or wrong) its:

Right wing, Me Me Me versus, Them They Those
Left Wing, We We We, versus You You You.

Right Wing, Personal Responsibility
Left Wing, Social Contract

Right Wing, Individualism
Leftwing, Society


Oh And Bush seems more like a fascist than and conservative I know.

Replace Terrorist with Capitalist, Jew, Commie or Mongolian horde in any of his speeches and you have Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini (sp) and McCarthy.

than Fact Most can't see that in My country just shows what a lack of historical reference we have. not so much an issue save for the fact that if America Sneezes, then the world catches cold...
posted by Elim at 4:33 PM on December 29, 2003


Replace Terrorist with Capitalist, Jew, Commie or Mongolian horde in any of his speeches and you have Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini (sp) and McCarthy.

At the risk of defending George Bush (I thought I'd never see the day), that's pretty poor logic. Terrorists (by any accurate definition) are bad guys. Capitalists, Jews, Commies and Mongolian hordes are not necessarily bad guys. I guess a problem may arrise when the word "terrorist" is misued, like the American student I met who was almost denied entry to Australia because of her "domestic terrorism" charge. Her crime? Being taken into custody by police in a park two blocks from a protest march in Washington. It was later ruled an illegal arrest, of course, but I guess it still gets stuck to your record.
posted by Jimbob at 4:39 PM on December 29, 2003


Interesting read.

Thanks.
posted by hadashi at 4:40 PM on December 29, 2003


The New Republicans
posted by homunculus at 4:43 PM on December 29, 2003


True Enough Jimbob, But the point is any change made to American Society is now the Terrorist fault to protect us FROM the Terrorists, or the defeat the Evil Terrorists,. Terrorists being a GREAT catch all, cause anyone can be called a terrorists, and Like Commies they Hide and Plot and even your neighbor (you know, the one with the dog that keeps you up all night, or that got the position YOU wanted, or doesn't vote the 'right' way) could be one.
posted by Elim at 4:48 PM on December 29, 2003


even your neighbor (you know, the one with the dog that keeps you up all night, or that got the position YOU wanted, or doesn't vote the 'right' way) could be one.

Or who reads an almanac.
posted by homunculus at 4:56 PM on December 29, 2003


But, he couldn't be better on defense.

Unless, of course, he actually did something to DEFEND the U.S., rather than doing all that he can to antagonize current enemies and create new ones around the globe.

But it's true, the yellow and orange lights sure are pretty...
posted by rushmc at 5:19 PM on December 29, 2003




Unless, of course, he actually did something to DEFEND the U.S.,

Well, there is Iran, and Libya just for starters. Now only Syria and Jordan have to chip in their two cents (more the former than the latter), and all's well that ends well.

But I'm still wondering about the 'attack on Medicare'.

Message received: 'America wins' - from the inimitable Mark Steyn.
posted by hama7 at 5:47 PM on December 29, 2003


The parallel my brother-in-law came up with over the holidays was Nixon=Clinton. Both were opportunists whose policies would have been applauded had they been championed by their "opposition" (Nixon on the environment, e.g. and Clinton's welfare reform), yet both were also so reviled by that "opposition" and attempts (successful in Nixon's case) were made to drive them from office.
posted by TimeFactor at 6:30 PM on December 29, 2003


Bush has some unrecognized traits.

First of all, he is a strong believer in the doctrine of *deception*, i.e. of directing everyone's attention to a false issue. As examples, his "ranch" in Crawford, TX, which sprang up overnight, and his use of Gitmo to distract everyone from the hundred-odd *real* detention centers elsewhere. Psychologically, this fits in with the obsessive "information control" (no leaks) in his administration. His greatest deception is the use of conventional military force to conceal his immense unconventional war, happening worldwide since 9-11 and resulting in great loss of enemy life.

He has a deep, abiding and recognized hatred of braggarts and self-promoters. He won't allow them anywhere near him.

He also as a deep, abiding hated of socialism, and this is a big one. For fifty years, incrementalism towards socialism has left behind a solid, hard-corps of Texas anti-socialists. Bush has and will continue to try to root out *any* vestige of what he believes is socialistic, and only pause if forced to by the courts, then to redirect the effort from another direction.

When the great "entitlement" program of Medicare reform was passed, Ted Kennedy was livid. Because though it was a HUGE increase in that program, it *eviscerated* many of the "socialist" qualities of Medicare. Kennedy, who is a true believer socialist, was in agony. But most democrats, who aren't die-hard socialists, said "fine." Bush is sure the price is worth it, as socialized medicine will be a lot harder to come about because of this act.

And this leads into another point: much of what Bush does is not for immediate use, it is for 10, 20 or 50 years down the road. He does give thought to the next war, even if he is not President when it happens.

He is also a "democratic revolutionary" who wants to spread democracy far and wide. Yet at the same time, he is extraordinarily nationalistic: they may be democracies, so we won't go to war with them; but that does *not* mean that they are our friends. He sees, with some justification, that every nation is "in it for themselves." Multinationalism is for corporations. The UN is a tool.

Early on in his first Presidential campaign, a Saturday Night Live sketch made fun of what it called his "strategery." Little did they know that everything he does has been planned for days or weeks or months.
posted by kablam at 6:41 PM on December 29, 2003


Well, there is Iran, and Libya just for starters. Now only Syria and Jordan have to chip in their two cents (more the former than the latter), and all's well that ends well.

For Libya, at best, the current administration can be given the credit for putting the frosting on the cake, not for mixing or baking. I think I even remember the Reader's Digest doing an article on their desire to get straight with the rest of the world pre Nov 2000.

Jordan has had a steadily improving relationship with the US since some tension during the first gulf war.

But I'm still wondering about the 'attack on Medicare'.

I believe most of the accusations have to do with provisions of the bill and rules of administration benefiting drug producers and HMOs more than they benefit individuals.

all's well that ends well.

That phrase, I think, is the one that will stem most of the tide of criticism on Iraq, especially if things continue to improve in Iraq. And to some extent, that perspective is worthwhile and useful.

However, that ignores the fact that there were other options available before we started firing shots. Despite the Bush administrations assertions, it isn't that our only options were to twiddle our thumbs while the UN did nothing, or to start dropping bombs. A gradual occupation plan was floated by an official in New Zealand, for example; suggested but never discussed, as far as I know.

I'll admit that the administration's strategy has borne some fruits, and know that for a lot of folks, that's enough to forget other alternatives that may have resulted in the loss of fewer lives and smaller expenditures of money. It shouldn't be that way, though.
posted by namespan at 6:59 PM on December 29, 2003


Bush is sure the price is worth it, as socialized medicine will be a lot harder to come about because of this act.

Thanks for your comment, kablam. I've read a bit on the subject, and have yet to derive little more than an inkling.

The trillion dollar price tag still has me bewildered, after a (fantastic) tax rebate, but kiss your hard earned money goodbye forever if this give-away becomes a long term reality.
posted by hama7 at 8:51 PM on December 29, 2003


hama7 asks, could someone explain how the new (regrettably enormous) spending is a cynical "attack on Medicare"?

Sure, care of Ruy Teixeira:
Let’s do the math that seniors are already doing all over America. A good way to start is with another excellentWashington Post article that came out the day after the bill passed. The article “Drug Benefit’s Impact Detailed: Many Will Face Big Out-of-Pocket Costs”, does an exemplary job of clearly outlining the structure of the drug benefit.
Here’s the basic idea: the benefit covers 75 percent of drug costs up to $2,250 in spending, then provides no coverage until $3,600 in out-of-pocket cost is reached, then covers 95 percent of drug costs after that.
This sounds, if not great, quite a bit better than it actually is. Here’s why. Before you get a penny of actual coverage, you have to absorb $670 in costs ($250 deductible and a $420 annual premium); then to get coverage up to that $2,250 figure, you have to lay out an additional $500 co-pay (25 percent of the $2,000 left after the deductible). So, at that point, the beneficiary has laid out $1,170 for $2,250 in coverage–a savings of less than half (48 percent).
At this point, the no coverage “doughnut hole” kicks in. But that’s not so bad, since coverage picks up again at $3,600 in costs, so the hole is “only” $1,350, right? Wrong! It only picks up again at $3,600 inout-of-pocketcosts, notdrug costs, which is quite a bit farther down the pike. Especially since out-of-pocket costs are defined to include only the deductible ($250) and the co-pay ($500), notthe annual premium costs ($420). Thus, since the beneficiary, by this definition, has had only $750 in out-of-pockets costs on the first $2,250, he or she has to pay $2,850 more ($3,600-$750) to reach the point where additional coverage kicks in.That means from $2,250 in drug costs to $5,100 ($2,250 + $2,850) in drug costs the beneficiary gets no coverage whatsoever. At that point, the beneficiary will have paid $4,020 ($1,170 + $2,850) on $5,100 in drug costs, a savings of just 21 percent. (For a graphical representation of this sad story, seeAngry Bear’s excellent post on this issue.)
But perhaps the typical senior–who doesn’t spend quite as much--will get a better deal and feel better about the benefit? This seems doubtful. The average drug spending by Medicare beneficiaries is projected to be about $3,250 in 2006, when the benefit takes effect. Under the bill just passed, a beneficiary will wind up having to pay 70 percent of this typical drug bill.
That doesn’t sound to DR like the drug benefit seniors had in mind. The GOP apparently doesn’t understand that what made Social Security and Medicare so wildly popular with voters is that they were very good benefits and dramatically improved the lives of those affected. The drug benefit just passed doesn’t remotely meet this standard and Republicans will find, to their sorrow, that failing to meet that standard will make a huge political difference.
In addition, low-income senior citizens will be kicked off the medicaid prescription drug benefit when the new medicare system kicks into place. Of course, the medicaid benefit is much better, and the medicare one will be unaffordable by low-income people. My brother who is a doctor has many patients who will lose access to prescription drugs if this actually takes place.

So, in short, this supposed benefit is pretty much a scam for channelling money to pharmaceutical and insurance companies.
posted by alms at 9:10 PM on December 29, 2003


I'll admit that the administration's strategy has borne some fruits,

And Germany, Italy, and Russia all saw great stabilizing effects right away, Who cares if some Non (insert Appropriate Mother/Father/Home land here) were hurt, think how better we are "for now", till the chickens come home to roost, like the Deficit, Medicare costs, The real unemplyment rate (currently at 9.5%) and Every nation basically boy-cotting our goods, Cost of the war, failure to finish or last war.. etc etc...

Remember empires always fail, and do so violently. Dictatorships Always Fall when Fear ain't enough, right now Fear is just enough...

Look to Britain to blink first....
posted by Elim at 10:31 PM on December 29, 2003


So, in short, this supposed benefit is pretty much a scam for channelling money to pharmaceutical and insurance companies.

Yeah, but that's good, isn't it? Strong corporations make America strong, and help to spread democratic values and freedom to all the peaceloving people of the world! Right?

Right?

...guys...?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:06 AM on December 30, 2003


So, in short, this supposed benefit is pretty much a scam for channelling money to pharmaceutical and insurance companies.

I appreciate the description, but I still fail to see how this is a "scam" to "channel" money anywhere. It is an exorbitantly expensive excess that leads to comparisons with Nixon, or more appropriately: the taxpayer funded "Great Society" socialist blunders of Lyndon B. Johnson.

The unsaid point of, Ruy Teixeira, the author quoted above, is that medicine for the elderly should ostensibly be fully paid for with other people's money. And that's just the immorality of socialism.

"We should resolve to support this administration precisely insofar as it genuinely and forthrightly pursues the principled vision of self-government to which the party has struggled to remain devoted since Lincoln helped found it amid the ruins of the Whigs. " - Alan Keyes, making some interesting observations about "Bush Republicans".

Reckless domestic overspending does not a good Republican make.
posted by hama7 at 6:51 AM on December 30, 2003


Give me the cabinites or the Jeffersonians any day.
posted by hama7 at 7:01 AM on December 30, 2003


The unsaid point of, Ruy Teixeira, the author quoted above, is that medicine for the elderly should ostensibly be fully paid for with other people's money. And that's just the immorality of socialism.

I didn't think that was the point at all. I think the author was taking as a given that some medicine for seniors would be paid for with other people's money. Perhaps that's immoral, or perhaps that's the cost of living in a society where we don't let people die because they have otherwise preventable or treatable illnesses but can't afford basic treatment.

Morality aside, I think Ruy was merely comparing Medicare before and after the reforms. We already spend a significant chunk of money to pay for the medical costs of the elderly. It would be strange to reform Medicare in ways that cost more money but yield smaller benefits.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:21 AM on December 30, 2003


perhaps that's the cost of living in a society where we don't let people die because they have otherwise preventable or treatable illnesses but can't afford basic treatment.

Here's a thought: If people are unable to save money themselves even after working their whole lives, and the government must be involved, then wouldn't giving the ill elderly *discount cards* for medicine be the most blatantly simplest solution, instead of monstrously inflating government with tax dollars?

Or, better yet, how about a private charity, or charities, distributing those *discount cards* funded entirely from money donated willingly, and leaving the Federal Government the heck out of it? I'd contribute.

Nobody is talking about "letting people die", and in this society self-reliance is the goal, not using government to forcibly redistribute wealth, which is grindingly immoral socialism. Again.
posted by hama7 at 7:54 AM on December 30, 2003


It would be strange to reform Medicare in ways that cost more money but yield smaller benefits.

To say the least.
posted by hama7 at 8:09 AM on December 30, 2003


hama7: Clearly we disagree about the role government should play in funding social programs, but perhaps we are not as far apart as you might think. If medical discount cards or medical IRAs work, than so be it. I'm for the least intrusive effective solution to the problem of access to medical care. If it could be effectively managed by a private charity, I'm all for it; I am, however, sceptical that a charity could replace Medicare and Medicaid.

Lastly, I think that we are, in fact, talking about letting people die. The elderly and the impoverished go without desperately needed medical care everyday in this country, just so they can eat. While we might value self-reliance, that can not be the exclusive goal. If it were, then we we have returned to Spencer's Social Statics.

It seems to me that by your estimation we already live in a "grindingly immoral" socialist state. Taxation, however, is a cost of living in society. Obviously, any such taxation is a forcible redistribution of wealth, but some redistribution is inevitable in any organized society. Inevitably, those with resources subsidize governmental services for those without. I think it should be a critically important goal of government to keep such redistributions to a minimum, but that goal must be balanced against the other goals we choose, as a society, to pursue. One of those goals is the health of all our citizens.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:47 AM on December 30, 2003


Reckless domestic overspending does not a good Republican make.

Neither does interventionist international adventurism. So what are you gonna do, vote for Dean or stay at home on election day?
posted by rushmc at 11:04 AM on December 30, 2003


I find the libertarian perspective on social services mighty fishy.

so if the government stops with the "hand-outs," a massive network of private organizations will spring up to fill the void? how is that gonna promote "self-reliance?" and you say you'll all donate? I'm not quite that gullible. but if you're gonna donate anyway, whats the point in tossing out the infrastructure already in place thats been doing it for years? do you really think individual donations plus whatever strings-attached funds from businesses is gonna cover it? why not just reform, or better yet participate in, what programs we already have? or start/join a private relief organization?

methinks libertarians are more interested in bigger paychecks than liberty. or just quelling their knee-jerk reaction to anything vaguely "socialist."
posted by mcsweetie at 11:53 AM on December 30, 2003


So what are you gonna do, vote for Dean or stay at home on election day?

Interventionist only in terms of removing a direct threat, but that's a separate issue. Dean?? Have you heard him lately? He should run for cover, not office. His nomination will make all Republicans ecstatic though, because he is unelectable.


I'm for the least intrusive effective solution to the problem of access to medical care.

Me too, but I don't think health care is the business the feds should be in. At all. I buy car insurance from a private company, and homeowner's insurance from a private company, so why should the government be in the business of health insurance and medicine distribution? Or should they be hawking car insurance and flood insurance too? Or making laws about mandatory vitamin supplement consumption? Regulating prices in the grocery store? Any time you want to see a mess made bigger and more expensive; involve the government. Get private companies competing over health care, and the prices go down and the quality increases.

As for charity-funded health care, don't underestimate the generosity of Americans, or others. But as it is, we'll never know, because those days will never come to any of the generations alive today, thanks to the latest and greatest increase in social welfare in about five decades.

elderly and the impoverished go without desperately needed medical care everyday in this country, just so they can eat.

Something tells me that using trillions of tax dollars to create a more bloated government bureaucracy is not going to change that, and I'd like to meet the person who has to choose between medicine and food, because I haven't yet. Overweight people I have seen in gracious plenitude, and obesity is a terrible health risk. The "starving poor" I have not. And if they do exist, please tell them they can go to their nearest church, charity food center or shelter for alms.

The nasty habit of imagining the government as an enormous parent taking care of all its little helpless sensitive victim children is mostly to blame.

libertarians are more interested in bigger paychecks than liberty

Once you've worked for decades to pay the rent and scrape and save only to see how much you have to smilingly hand over to the IRS and others, and watch it thrown out the window on nonsense like the crushing disaster in social indoctrination that is the American Public School System and bigger paychecks and benefits for insolent and lazy bureaucrats in government offices, you'll understand why we're interested in keeping more of the money we've spent our lives earning.
posted by hama7 at 12:20 PM on December 30, 2003


I understand why. I just think you should fight the real enemy.
posted by mcsweetie at 12:33 PM on December 30, 2003


His nomination will make all Republicans ecstatic though, because he is unelectable.

everytime I hear that, I get more confident that he's gonna win. there's only one reason why the right is coming out swinging so hard, so early on this one.
posted by mcsweetie at 12:35 PM on December 30, 2003


hama7, I'm as cynical as you are about the role the government currently plays in providing social services. The current bureaucracy is a disaster, and has been for some time. I'm firmly of the opinion that our government could do a lot more with a lot less, particularly in the area of medical insurance. I've tried very hard, however, not to let that cynicism cloud my hopeful view of what government might accomplish with the right people at the helm. Sure, Medicare is a disaster, and will only be moreso after Bush's reforms, but that doesn't mean it has to be that way. Maybe I'm too idealistic. I hope not, for the future's sake.

As for the larger point about what business the government should be in, I see a huge difference between car and home insurance on one hand, and medical insurance on the other. Insurance for your car and your home are, truth be told, luxuries. They are important to have, but one can go without if truly necessary. There's not a whole heck of a lot you can do to avoid medical expenses, though. The ability to have illness treated is a basic requirement, and goes directly to our dignity as human beings. We live in a society where we truly have a largess of resources, and we could do a lot to alleviate the suffering of our fellow citizens. I remain hopeful that government can provide an opportunity to share those resources in an efficient and thoughtful way.

Trust me, I pay more than my fair share to the IRS, and I resent it and the bureaucrats that enable it. I don't deny that we are living in a failing system, and that my ideas are just that, at least for now. I think the thing that distinguishes many liberals from libertarians, though, is that the liberals haven't given up the progressive ideal yet. Government can do good things, but we have to take it out of the hands of those who would bend it to their own purposes.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:35 PM on December 30, 2003


It's been said for a long time that the American Medicare system is far more expensive as a proportion of GDP than National Health systems such as that which we enjoy in the UK. This thread piqued my curiosity and I've been googling on the subject (not very good at it, I'm afraid) and found a lot of stuff, most of which was in PDF form and aimed at professionals (and difficult to parse as an amateur). I did find this, which contains a comparative chart. Now I realise that it's from a campaigning site but still, the figures quoted (surprise surprise) support that proposition. Can anyone find better figures on that subject?

Speaking personally, the main thing for me is that I don't have to worry at all about medical costs. I pay for eye and dental checks (although these are available on the NHS if you look and qualify - they're means tested) and a standard prescription charge, but GP costs and hospital care are free at the point of delivery, which means that we don't have to worry about huge medical bills. As an outsider to American culture, fear of medical costs seems to loom quite large in it. A quick google on "Medical Bills" threw up this (google cache, the original requires registration), this, and this, for example. They're not proof of anything in themselves, but they do hint at a culture regarding medical costs that we don't have here.
posted by Grangousier at 1:51 PM on December 30, 2003


The ability to have illness treated is a basic requirement, and goes directly to our dignity as human beings.

Here's my objection. If what you mean by "requirement" is that essentially health care is a *right* - it's not in the U.S. constitution, as all the rights that we enjoy are well documented.

Whether or not medical insurance is a luxury is still not clear to me, which is why I mentioned the vitamin supplement situation above. Whether it is or not, the Federal government should stay well away, because that's what states are for. If a state decides to socialize medicine and it's fine with the state's citizens and the state's constitution, then good for them. People who don't want it have either the opportunity to make their opinions known at the ballot box, or move to another state. (California comes to mind)

I hope government can do good things too, but I'd like to think that individuals can provide for themselves, and state governments can provide for their citizens better than Washington D.C. can. Recent events seem to demonstrate otherwise, however.

Speaking personally, the main thing for me is that I don't have to worry at all about medical costs.

What is the medical tax rate in the U.K.? Do you feel overly burdened by taxes, or is it a sum that is not a major financial strain, generally? I wonder because I mistakenly praised the Korean system (everybody has National Healthcare) and was thoroughly castigated by a friend who knew a great deal more than me on the subject. The system is an enormous financial burden on the economy, on the brink of bankruptcy (again), and the best qualified doctors are fleeing the country in droves because there is no incentive to perform in a socialized bureaucracy, as there really never is, where promotions are based on duration rather than performance. I'd be curious to hear more.
posted by hama7 at 4:40 PM on December 30, 2003


For clarification: Promoting "the general welfare" means that people who are ill or handicapped, or are otherwise unable to work should have some allocated finances designated for assistance. Bloating an oversized government with new programs and offices doesn't fall under that category.

After all is said and done, the Bush/ Nixon analogy is appropriate.
posted by hama7 at 5:23 PM on December 30, 2003


hama7: According to these sources, Korea spends less than half of what the United States spends (as a percentage of GDP) on health care, and the United States consistently pays a larger percentage of its GDP on health care than all other OECD countries (about 13%, as opposed to 5.9% in South Korea). Korea actually spends less of its GDP on health care than most other OECD countries; local complaints about the financial burden could be referring to the dramatic increase in health care costs in that country over the last ten years. However, it's still cheaper than the American system. And as for doctors fleeing the country in droves, that reminds me a lot of the situation in West Virginia. Ah, the subtle pleasures of thread derailment.

It's funny that you and I (and many others here) all oppose the Medicare drug act, but for completely different reasons. I guess one rhetorical question might put us on the same page: if the government is going to be spending all this money on drugs (while many seniors will see little personal benefit, and some will even lose what drug coverage they currently have), where is all that money ending up? And why does the law include a prohibition on Medicare negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical companies? Who benefits the most from the new law?
posted by skoosh at 7:38 PM on December 30, 2003


I've tried very hard, however, not to let that cynicism cloud my hopeful view of what government might accomplish with the right people at the helm.

The only problem with that, really the main problem, is that different people will be at the helm at different times, and they will almost all be professional politicians. Look at what happened to the US Institute of Peace under Bush: he appointed Daniel Pipes to head it. So, the USIP is effectively turned into a propaganda machine for the war party. Good intentions were behind the creation of the instutitions, but the reality is that the wrong person will be in charge at some point, and use those instutitions to his/her own end. The less power that person has to begin with, the better.
posted by krinklyfig at 6:53 AM on December 31, 2003


Once you've worked for decades to pay the rent and scrape and save only to see how much you have to smilingly hand over to the IRS

And yet you don't mind at all paying those exhorbitant and ever increasing amounts to insurance comapnies for your car, your home, your health? I admit, they do build nice big buildings for themselves, but it hardly represents "keeping more of your money for yourself." When insurance is legally mandated and insurance companies are free to set whatever prices they like, then it seems to me that taxation by the government might be preferable, since those who enact the taxes are at least, in theory, able to be held responsible for their actions.
posted by rushmc at 6:57 AM on December 31, 2003


about 13%, as opposed to 5.9% in South Korea

That's odd, but not so much really when you consider the relative quality of the two systems. Until about two years ago, you could buy whatever you wanted in a pharmacy in Korea without a prescription. When the law was changed to require a prescription, all the doctors (including emergency room) went on strike. It's disorganized, clinics are uniformly filthy, and the system is overused by people who go running to the hospital every time they sneeze, but still fairly, and surprisingly, cheap.

where is all that money ending up?

I see the direction here, but again, the pharmaceutical companies aren't exactly strapped for cash anyway, so they'd probably prosper financially without needing any sinister and devious payous from the "man". Still, the Medicare spending is unquestionably exorbitant, unprecedented, and disappointing.

then it seems to me that taxation by the government might be preferable

Maybe not. Private companies have to compete for customers, and when they do, the customer benefits. The government just sends out its thugs.
posted by hama7 at 7:37 AM on December 31, 2003


« Older I hear Osama likes anchovies on his.   |   beware the ides of march Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments