This is our Daily News/Politics thread. Talk about the news, politics, post a link, whatever you like. I’ll start it off.
The Obama campaign will not be pleased. This has to sting a bit, and it should.
From the Daily Caller,
“President Barack Obama was greeted with fleeting applause and extended periods of silence as he offered profuse praise to soldiers and their families during an Aug. 31 speech in Fort Bliss, Texas.
His praise for the soldiers — and for his own national-security policies — won cheers from only a small proportion of the soldiers and families in the cavernous aircraft-hanger.
The audience remains quiet even when the commander-in-chief thanked the soldiers’ families, and cited the 198 deaths of their comrades in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The audience’s reaction was so flat that the president tried twice to elicit a reaction from the crowd.
“Hey, I hear you,” he said amid silence.
The selected soldiers who were arrayed behind the president sat quietly throughout the speech.
CNN and MSNBC ended their coverage of the speech before it was half-over.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/31/obama-speech-to-soldiers-met-with-silence/#ixzz25EZy4SCm
His chilly reception probably has something to do with this.
From CNSNews
“Is the U.S. Army headed in the right direction?
An internal Army survey that was conducted in 2011 and published this year discovered that only 26 percent of active-duty Army officers say yes–and that one of the two main themes cited by those who say no is that the Army is now adversely impacted by “political correctness” imposed by both outside policymakers and senior Army leaders.
And this as well. This one really bothers me. It appears the President’s office is autopenning his signature in letters to fallen soldiers. That’s pretty bad. These people gave all in service to this great country. The least they could do was actually have Obama take a few minutes from his schedule and send them a personally signed letter. Just poor taste.
From PJ Media,
“Karen brought a copy of the form letter they were sent following their son’s death.
It’s a form letter.
It was signed by an electric pen.
That’s not all. Karen Vaughn reached out to the parents of the other SEALs killed in that crash. Their letters were all the same. Form letters – signed by an electric pen.”
Wandering Views 
I hear Obama has a new Vice President. His name is Joe Bidenopoulos.
LikeLike
A liberal friend shared something on Facebook about Romney telling someone who was affected by Hurricane Isaac to call 211 (an info line). They are presenting this as a show of callous disregard, but I’m wondering if he was really sending her to the number to call to get real help.
Anyone know anything about this, or seen an article about it?
LikeLike
Haven’t seen that one, Karen.
I am getting a little worried about the intensity of this campaign. Although from my unscientific observation, there seem to be fewer political FB posts this year (as opposed to ’08), though they’ll probably appear with more frequency as election day draws near.
And there are still folks posting really “loud” messages. Naturally, the ones from the right don’t bother me (and even give me a smile). The ones from the left are entirely annoying to me. 🙂 I outwardly ignore them all (though the temptation to comment sometimes is VERY hard to resist), but will sometimes send like-minded friends a private FB message of agreement.
Liberals probably are feeling they have a very uphill battle — so things could get a little more desperate and outrageous as the big day draws near. And the intensity isn’t likely to go away anytime soon, it could even get worse after the election, especially if Romney wins in a close race. Ugly.
I’ll be especially curious to see how the coverage fares in the so-called main-stream media in this election cycle. My (again unscientific) sense is that with Fox and MSNBC and so many other strongly partisan outlets, mainstream reporters and publications are feeling less of a constraint on maintaining a strictly neutral stance.
And since most reporters do lean left, that probably means more of a leftward direction in some if not a lot of the coverage?
I hope not, but …
Such deep and unpleasant division in our country right now (starkly reflected in what AJ posted about as well). 😦
LikeLike
Hubbykins made the military a career. A couple of sons joined up thinking they would, too. They are both getting out once their time is up. It is disturbing.
LikeLike
I hope we don’t get in a war in the next 20 years with a competent opponent. We have too few troops who can actually fight. We abused those folks with too many deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
LikeLike
Ricky
A wager — if we elect the R’s, we’ll be in at least one, maybe two new wars within 2 years. If I win — I get the beverage of my choice and if you win you get the beverage of your choice. Deal?
You are absolutely right about the deployments. Military is also using PMSC’s (contractors) to supplement their work — I dislike it as it feels a little bit to me like using mercenaries.
Kim
The divisions are nasty — and punctuated with lies from both sides.
On FB posts — I try not to do any political posts on FB unless you count liking humanrights.gov I think it gets really tiresome to check in with friends and get politics. Fortunately most of my FB friends don’t do alot of that. One lefty and one right winger do that. It’s like fingernails on a chalkboard to me.
On libs and desperation – I don’t get that sense from them. And they seem to think the R’s are in that position. Completely polar reactions. I think Obama could win or Romney could win — too hard to call. That may be why each side thinks the other is looking desperate.
LikeLike
CB, funny you should say that. My Grandmother use to say with Democrats you get war, with Republicans you get depression. Things have changed.
LikeLike
KBells, I remember that, too, being said during the vietnam era. Hoover right before the great depression; Kennedy/Johnson, the long war in Asia.
I suppose just my own common sense says — the last four years (economically) have been miserable; “obamacare” is unpopular; the national debt has become downright scary.
So people would re-elect the incumbent … why?
The polls are close and the election may be also. But it wouldn’t surprise me to see Romney start to pull away by Oct. 1 — it’s their’s to lose, in my mind. Of course, lose it they could. 😉 But the Rs have a clear advantage this year — just as the Dems had the clear advantage in ’08.
Democratic crowds are down, enthusiasm certainly ain’t what it was in ’08. The momentum is with conservatives and, barring an unexpected mess up or scandal of huge proportions, it makes sense to me that Romney will (more than likely, though I’m not putting any money or even a drink on this one — not yet, anyway) win.
LikeLike
Four years ago my liberal colleagues were downright walking on air, gloating for months leading up to the election (with the only sour note being when Palin generated such initial enthusiasm, the only little blip the R’s got in the ’08 campaign).
This year, those same colleagues are … Very, very quiet. Angry at times, but quiet.
LikeLike
Mumsee, that is interesting that you say that. I am currently FB friends with a 24 year old Marine who grew up with a father in the Navy (four years at Gitmo) so it wasn’t like he didn’t know what the military would be like. He hates it and can’t wait to get out. Why is that?
LikeLike
CB, you made me think of this post that a friend put on FB. Yes I shamelessly copied and pasted. I am not creative and talented enough to write this my own self.
Dear Friends, Family, Co-workers, and Anyone Else I Know;
As we all know, there is a rather major election happening this year. I know, no matter how loud or quiet you are, you probably (definitely) have opinions. You probably lean more toward one political party than the other, more toward one candidate than the other, more toward one side than the other, just as I do. You have strongly held beliefs about certain issues, just as I do. One of the great things about living in this country is our ability–and right–to hold and VOTE our political conscience, for the things and people we believe in.
That being said.
As the election gets nearer, and the tempers get shorter, and the mud gets fling-ier, I want you to remember some things, please:
When you post on Facebook that someone is “Too stupid to breathe…” if they vote for X candidate–you could be talking about me.
When you write in your email that someone who votes for Y candidate is “UnAmerican”–you could be talking about me.
When you say that someone who believes that Z candidate has better policies should “be taken out back and shot”–you could be talking about me.
When you say that you hope everyone who votes for XYZ candidate “is rounded up” before the election–you could be talking about ME.
When you say/post/share ugly words, thoughts or pictures about people on the other side to support your political position–you could be talking about ME.
About ME, or someone like me that you know. Not just a random “them.” But someone you like, or love. Someone you may have known your whole life. Someone you may think is intelligent, articulate, well-spoken. Someone you may think is caring, kind, giving.
There is a PERSON behind the things you are saying. When you say that all liberals, or all conservatives…when you say that all Democrats or all Republicans…when you say that ALL of any group is/says/does/thinks/behaves/believes/hates/loves/etc., you are saying that about real people. Honest to goodness, flesh and blood people. Not just ideologies. Not just platforms. Not just issues. Not just politicians. Your friends. Your family. Your neighbors. Your coworkers.
Please, by all means, believe what you believe. Vote the way you want to vote. Engage in civil discussion about issues and platforms, if you want to. Advocate strongly for why you think what you think. Use reason to explain your position. These things? These make us better citizens, make us a better part of the political process. But when you start throwing those ugly words out, when you start sharing those ugly graphics, and those hateful quotes, and you point your finger at “THOSE PEOPLE” just remember…you could be talking about me. Someone you know. Someone you call friend, family, coworker.
And maybe that doesn’t matter to you. Maybe it doesn’t matter that you’re saying I’m stupid, unAmerican, deserve to be kicked out of the country, deserve to die, don’t have any compassion, don’t care about my fellow citizens, or am a moron. Maybe it doesn’t bother you because you believe SO strongly that ALL people who believe opposite of you are SO wrong that you’re willing to forget the people behind those beliefs, that they are more than just their political opinions, more than just where they fall on an issue or what candidate they want to vote for.
But to me it does. Because when this political season is over, and the races have been decided, the non-stop political nonsense will die back down to a low boil. But you and I? We’ll still know each other. And I’ll know what you really think…of me.
And how can that not change how I think of you?
LikeLike
Kim
I may just copy that post if any of the FB folks get froggy. I know them all — in person they wouldn’t speak to people the way they post.
On your FB friend, military life is pretty structured and it is not a lot of glory like you see in the commercials. It is hierarchical — I wouldn’t be surprised if his reaction is common.
Donna
Yeah — libs are not gloating this time around with the 50-50 realization. But I don’t see cons gloating either — mostly I note seething anger. What’s interesting to me is this sense that Obama has changed America into a socialist/communist country. It’s funny to me because I haven’t noticed that much change, seems status quo to me. My liberal friends did this same thing when W was Pres, this sense of we’re becoming authoritarian/facists and I had the same puzzlement — really? Aside from the patriot act, things just didn’t seem that different.
KBells
Yeah, funny that. It did used to be that you could trust republicans to have a realpolitik foreign policy. Those days seem gone.
LikeLike
CB, he grew up in the military. He knew what it was like from his dad being in. That’s what is so odd. Surely two guys raised by Mumsee can follow orders 😉
LikeLike
Donna
I will vote for the incumbent because the challenger does not make me think he will improve the situation even a little bit. He’ll have a learning curve on foreign policy and will start bellicose (just as W did) and end just like W did with the same kinds of solutions we see the dems doing.
On economics — the Ryan budget, if that’s to be the blueprint doesn’t add up to balanced. These guys started to be truthful about that in convention speeches with a line close to “this will move us toward a balanced budget.” And its impossible for me to take seriously the swipe at the Exec branch on credit downgrades when it was Congress and the House in particular that made that happen. The R solution of more tax deductions has been tried. But they’ll promise more of that. These guys would be Bush on steroids. I’ll stick with Bush lite which is what we have now. Wish there were better choices.
LikeLike
Bush light. Interesting comment. I did not like Bush on economics at all and hated voting for him for that reason the second time.
I don’t think we’re becoming a communist/ socialist nation, it just has a feel of government trying to control everything and be the solution
to everything that concerns me. 🙂
LikeLike
CB, I have not liked the R’s foreign policy since Little Bush invaded Iraq. I actually give Obama relatively high grades on foreign policy, although I’m beginning to think he sent more troops to Afghanistan to fulfill a campaign promise and without a good plan on how to use them.
I know a lot of contractors who are going overseas. They are being paid great money. I’m not sure that is an efficient use of resources.
On taxes, Ryan and Obama’s deficit commission recommended tax reform. That is different from tax cuts. The model should be Reagan’s 1986 tax bill. It raised 19-20% of GDP in revenue. There were three rates (15%, 28% and 33%). You paid the same rate on salary, interest, capital gain and dividend income, so Buffett would have paid tax at the same rate as his secretary. Over 75% of people paid income tax. Four presidents and many Congresses have spent the last 24 years messing up Reagan’s simple tax code. The current code is as complex as Carter’s and only raises 15% of GDP in revenue.
We now spend 25% of GPD and raise 15% of GDP in revenue. Clearly, the goal needs to be to raise and spend 19%-20% of GDP. That’s going to require great sacrifices and a growing economy. I don’t think our leadership or our people are up to the task.
LikeLike
Michelle
On the score of government power I am a small l liberal (as are most Americans) and I thank the founders of our nation for the checks and balances they built into our system. A few years ago (about 20 now) when I was abroad speaking to a group of Brits it was interesting trying to get them to understand that Americans, whether democrat, republican, liberal or conservative or moderate all shared a suspicion of governmental power. And explaining to them that we are all also small c conservatives — incremental change was also an interesting thing.
Ricky
On contracting — I have some experience with that. To fill a gap in our section we had a contractor, price was 250k per annum. Most of that went to the contracting company. Total beltway banditry racket. But contracting was ok, getting a new position to handle the job was not — different pools of money and authorizations.
On Simpson, Bowles, fair enough. Ryan voted against it in the house. I definitely agree on leadership and people not being up to it — we simply don’t want to look at the reality and understand it.
LikeLike
I see a distinct difference in philosophy regarding whether government should be big and centralized — and be given more control over things like health care; or whether government ought to be smaller and more de-centralized, the private sector more encouraged through more flexible regulations.
So it’s not just a choice between two specific candidates (and, yeah, I would wish for better ones, too). It’s a choice between two directions for the future (whether that actually gets accomplished by either side or not remains to be seen).
Despite the candidates and whether we like them or not, most of us at least lean in one of those directions or the other.
Much of my concern with Obama is a sense that he’s rudderless. I really don’t think he had the experience for the job (Hillary would have been a much better president). And my sense he’s not learned a heck of a lot in the first 4 years. He appears to be dug in with the direction he’s been going, somehow convinced that it really is all “working.” Somewhere, somehow. 😉
And keep in mind, many of our libertarian friends think the GOP is Obama light — and will come no where near cutting government spending or size in ways they think are needed. I suspect folks like Frank and others will stand firm in NOT voting for the Rs OR the Ds.
It is all relative, isn’t it?
Kim, good post from FB, I may also save it. One of my former colleagues the other day simply posted F (spelled out) Romney (after he ordered anyone supporting him to immediately, please, “de-friend me” as he didn’t want us on his list). Oh wait. Maybe that was anyone who ate at chick-fil-a who he wanted to be purged from his list. I forget. I do get all these issues confused sometimes. 🙂
So much anger out there this time. I notice it more with liberals, CB notices it more with conservatives. Maybe we all notice it more coming from whatever side we’re not on, I don’t know.
LikeLike
Donna
Pretty sure where we split on the health care issue is that I don’t see the private sector solution working as health is not like other economic options in a capitalist society. The reasonable consumer on health care will spend all they have, mortgage the house, do whatever they have to to secure the health of a loved one or themselves — this is a part of the reason our systems is both more expensive and provides inferior results to others (before folks jump at me, I encourage you to simply look at statistical comparisons between western industrialized countries – let the facts speak for themselves, you don’t need a chart from heritage or think progress to see the bald numbers). On many other issues we likely agree, starting with elimination of the dept of ed.
I think a major part of the issue in America generally and between the parties specifically is a winner take all attitude — there is no room for win-win scenarios and hence no room for compromise. So pols can’t show weakness by agreeing with the other guy and all they are left with is demonizing the other guy and lying about his or her record.
LikeLike
I agree with you on health care, something does/did need to be done. Tort reform might have helped, too.
I don’t think anyone has the gumption to point out and make happen what needs to happen for my grandchildren to have a particularly prosperous future. 😦
Off to see Mary Poppins
LikeLike
Agree, something needs to be done on health care. Our costs keep going up on our work plans — and I may have to dump the PPO plan I’m on now (due to the rising out-of-pocket costs for me) and switch to the only other plan we offer, which is a modified Kaiser hmo (which also isn’t all that cheap, but cheaper than the PPO).
As I get older, I realize that a major illness could wipe me out financially — within weeks, possibly! 😦
LikeLike
And I’m off to the dog park, the canine version of Mary Poppins.
LikeLike
Sons and DiL are dissatisfied with certain aspects of the military that were not a problem when hubby was in. They did have a pretty good idea what they were getting into but things seem to have changed a bit. Whether it is just the attitudes or abilities of their fellows or what, I don’t know.
LikeLike
CB, Your story of contracting is consistent with what my Dad told me. Government is inherently inefficient. Government paying contractors is inherently highway robbery, which brings us to healthcare. Medicare and Medicaid are essentially the government paying docs, hospitals, drug companies, MRI centers as private contractors.
We have not tried the private sector in healthcare since 1965. Before 1965 healthcare was not 17% of our economy. Doctors lived in nice homes, but not $2,000,000 homes.
An event in my family history challenges your view on healthcare consumers. When my grandmother retired she had six surgeries planned. This was in the early 1980s and Reagan had increased the Medicare copayment in an attempt to limit the growth of Medicare spending. Grandmother had complications that nearly killed her in the first surgery, got a big copayment bill and decided against the other surgeries, not because the first surgery almost killed her, but because she had to pay several thousand dollars. Dad always said Reagan added 25 years to his Mother’s life.
LikeLike
One thing I noticed at the convention: one of the biggest cheers, in fact perhaps THE biggest, that Condi Rice got was for the story about herself: “A little girl grows up in Jim Crow Birmingham. The segregated city of the South where her parents cannot take her to a movie theater or to restaurants, but they have convinced her that even if she cannot have a hamburger at Woolworth’s, she can be the president of the United States if she wanted to be, and she becomes the secretary of state.” The crowd’s response was wildly enthusiastic. I thought, how awesome that both parties welcome people of all skin colors, in contrast to the past. I wish liberals would acknowledge that. I don’t know how any fair-minded person can look at that, as well as the enthusiastic response to the many other minority speakers, and still insist that Republicans are racist. Clearly they didn’t care about the color of the speakers’ skin.
Later I read Mona Charen’s article which insightfully brought up a difference in the way that liberals and conservatives think about this:
The house went wild with joy. The Republicans in Tampa metaphorically lifted Rice onto their shoulders and carried her around the arena. Why? Because Americans like Rice ratify what Republicans believe about this country — that our triumph over racism and discrimination, not the history of it, is what defines us. It’s the opposite of the Democrats’ message — that racism, discrimination, and injustice are deep-dyed into the American character.
LikeLike
Ricky at 5:08,
Good comment, though I disagree on foreign policy.
CB,
If you would look at S & P’s explanation that they gave for the credit downgrades, it wasn’t just Congress and the debt ceiling debate that they blamed for it:
We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.
Our lowering of the rating was prompted by our view on the rising public debt burden and our perception of greater policymaking uncertainty, consistent with our criteria
…
The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as
America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective,
and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt
ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in
the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year’s wide-ranging debate, in our
view, the differences between political parties have proven to be
extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting
agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program
that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and
Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on
discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on
more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have
dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions
only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements,
the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key
to long-term fiscal sustainability.
Obviously the Republicans don’t get a pass here, but neither do the Democrats and the Administration is part of the Democratic party and heavily involved in the fiscal debate as well with a lot of influence on the Democrats in Congress.
To quote Liz Mair (language warning):
1) It wasn’t clear until the last possible minute that the debt ceiling would definitely be raised (OK, blame the Tea Party on this one, though I’d also note Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling as a senator and if we give him a pass on that, he ONLY gets a pass because his position was so minority then as to not matter– so he was fringe AND irrelevant);
2) Washington– constituted by two relatively intransigent political parties– can‘t and won’t get its @#$% together to a) cut spending– and especially entitlements and/or b) raise revenue at an adequate level for S&P’s tastes (Democrats and Republicans get equal blame here, as Democrats won’t accept significant cuts to entitlement spending, which S&P calls out by name, and many Republicans won’t accept any tax increases);
3) The deal cut in order to allow the debt ceiling to be raised sucked and didn’t do enough (again, both parties get blame here); and
4) Our debt burden is getting too big and setting aside that Democrats and Republicans in Washington haven’t been able to get their @#$% together to deal with it, S&P thinks they won’t, in the near future, get their @#$% together, either (again, both parties get blame here).
LikeLike
CB,
On health care, I think you’re perhaps looking at faulty information and bad comparisons. Have you seen the Ryan health care plan? Yuval Levin explains it here.
The Romney-Ryan proposal involves a hybrid of defined-benefit and defined-contribution insurance. The government would establish a basic benefits package, based on what Medicare covers today, and each year private insurers and a government-run fee-for-service insurer would bid to offer that coverage (or more) at the lowest premium they could offer. The amount Medicare would spend on behalf of seniors would be set at the level of the second-lowest bid (or the fee-for-service bid, whichever was lower) in each region. Seniors who chose options that cost more than the premium-support payment (because they offered more benefits, or were less efficient) would have to make up the difference themselves, and those who chose a less expensive option would get the difference back in a tax-free health-savings account. In such a system, seniors would continue to be guaranteed comprehensive coverage with no greater out-of-pocket costs than today’s seniors have, but intense competition among insurers could drive down the cost of providing it. If it worked, Medicare’s costs would decline dramatically, making the program (and the federal government) more fiscally sustainable. If it didn’t work, costs would not go down and another approach would have to be found. Either way, seniors would have a guaranteed, comprehensive benefit. By definition (that is, by program design), the voucher would not prove insufficient to buy decent coverage because its value would be determined by the cost of decent coverage in the very market in which it would be used.
I encourage you to read the whole article. In my view it and the articles that it links to basically explode the entire case against the Romney-Ryan plan, showing how the simple comparisons of Medicare/Medicaid to private insurance are flawed (Medicare/Medicaid have huge hidden costs that don’t show up on their budget because they are covered by other agencies, and both often underpay providers because of price controls, which forces providers to shift costs to the private insurance system), and also showing how your “bald number” comparisons to foreign systems are seriously flawed (we are growing a much larger base at the rate they’re growing smaller ones), and we have to do things that no other western, industrialized nation is doing. But we’re actually a good bit more efficient in terms of the use of resources for health care.
LikeLike
Another thing on health care is that most innovation in health care is paid for through the US market.
LikeLike
Interesting point, FuzzyFace. In order to understand healthcare, imagine what would happen if the government decided to create Autocare and Autoaid to provide free cars to the elderly and the poor. Remember that in the early years of Medicare and Medicaid, the government was virtually giving healthcare providers a blank check to come up with new treatments, surgeries, tests, etc. Given a similar blank check, think of all the new innovations and gadgets that could be added to cars. If the old and poor were getting these new features, the rest of us would want them too. Unfortunately, the average price of a car would have gone from $25,000 to $100,000. We would be told that consumers can’t make rational choices regarding cars. The government would fret about the cost of cars. Finally, the Democrats would propose a plan to have the government provide cars to all Americans.
LikeLike
The one sensible thing I’ve heard about reforming healthcare for years is that consumers need to know the cost of the services they are purchasing, and have an incentive to choose only the services they consider really worth the money. Would people still spend all they had for the best care?
In some cases, yes. If your child has cancer you spend whatever it takes to fight it. But in other cases, no. My husband would like to have surgery on his knee, but the deductible and co-pays would be more than we can afford right now. So he lives with the pain, knowing after all that there’s no guarantee he would be pain-free after the surgery – the surgeon could deal with the torn meniscus but apparently a lot of the pain is from arthritis that developed after the injury.
This year for the first time my employer offered a plan with a health savings account. I pay everything out-of-pocket (from the account, which is funded mostly by payroll deductions, though the company gave me a small amount to start out) up to a certain limit, which I haven’t reached yet. The money is mine – for health-case use only – even though I no longer have the job, unlike the flex spending plans where it was use it or lose it. So I have an incentive not to use it on something that is not essential or that can be put off.
I’d been hearing for well over a decade that this was the most sensible approach, but I’m only now starting to see these plans become more common. (I’ll find out in two days whether my new employer has one.)
LikeLike
Soldiers are order to these events.
LikeLike
Pauline, good point about actual costs vs. what ends up getting billed.
Our company also offers a health savings account, although as I recall you need to “use it or lose it” during the calendar year — I wish there were a way any unused money could roll over into your account for the next year also.
But aside from your co-pays, you really can use the money for all sorts of costs, from eyeglasses/contacts to even OTC medicines or supplies (I believe contact lens solution was even covered which can be pricey on an ongoing basis) you buy at the drug store.
LikeLike
test
LikeLike
If your avitar doesn’t show up, mess with the e-mail address
This is a test
LikeLike
Donna, the rules about Health Savings Accounts come from the IRS. The money does roll over from year to year, and it’s portable if you change jobs or leave the work force. You have to have a “high premium high deductible” health plan to have one. Maybe what you have is actually a Flexible Spending Arrangement (what I used to have) but people mistakenly call it a health savings account because that sounds descriptive of it?
LikeLike
Now, lets try:
I predict that the Obama campaign will run on the Clinton record. i.e.
Q- Are you better off than you were four years ago?
A We are better off than when Bush got us into two wars and a financial meltdown.
Watch for it.
LikeLike
In 2008, Bill O’Reilly said that both McCain and Obama would send the country down the road to economic ruin, but that Obama would put us on the fast track. I feel the same way this year. Neither party wants to make cuts where it hurts: social spending. Too bad. Get the ones who are able to work off their behinds, doing things like road construction or other helpful work. Then they would pay taxes on their income instead of only being takers. We could also cut the military budget by focusing on defending our borders rather than being the policemen for the world. I know it is embarrassing, but we are not going to improve Afghanistan by staying. Bring them all home today! (I don’t support Ron Paul’s isolationist sounding rhetoric, but the more I look at what is happening to us in the world, the more I agree with him.)
I don’t mind paying taxes as long as they don’t go to waste.
LikeLike
Peter L,
Do you mean entitlement spending? I agree it’s been tough to get the parties to focus on reforming entitlements, but I disagree about the ticket this year. Romney pleasantly surprised me by picking Ryan; that takes real guts and suggests that they “want this debate” as Ryan has said, but furthermore, that they plan to do something about it if they win, since Medicare and health care reform are among Ryan’s top priorities in the House. The need for reform has never been more apparent, the issue never more at the forefront – though unemployment and the sputtering economy still seems like the biggest issue – nor the climate more ripe for it. Contrast that with the two Bush elections: in 2000 there was a surplus and a solid economy, so Bush ran on compassionate conservatism and character. He supported Medicare and Social Security reform, but that was not a big thing. In 2004, he advocated SS reform, but family values was a big factor in that campaign and foreign policy was even bigger as Bush’s administration had taken an unexpected turn with the events of 9/11. He advocated SS reform in 2005, but the Democrats pushed back hard and the public wasn’t ready for it. But now, with the Obama administration’s policies turning the debt into a huge issue, voters might be ready to allow politicians to touch the proverbial third rails of politics, and Romney seems to agree with his choice of Ryan.
If they win, hopefully they can get enough votes to pass something meaningful like the Ryan-Wyden plan. They won’t balance the budget in four years, no one can do that; but if they can rein in the exploding cost of Medicare, that will be a big victory and a huge step in the direction of balancing the budget. The problem of course is the Democrats. You saw how hard the Obama administration had to work to pass Obamacare, being forced to drop the public option from the bill, even though they had a large majority in both houses of Congress. The Republicans won’t hold such large majorities if they win both houses and will have to get the support of some Democrats like Senator Wyden, who recognize the danger that lies ahead with the explosion of entitlement spending, in order to pass a meaningful reform.
LikeLike
9/11 changed everything for the Bush administration. I understand, I would have too. That was worse than Pearl Harbor. The problem was, he didn’t identify the enemy.
As Rush says, Bush was conservative, but didn’t have a conservative agenda. He never vetoed a Democratic money bill.
LikeLike
Chas- Nor did he veto ant Republican spending bills. Those 6 years almost turned me completely off to the GOP. But I realize they are the only party keeping the Democrats from running roughshod over America.
LikeLike
Matt Y- Do you mean entitlement spending?
Yes. Entitlements seem to bring with them the “gimmie” attitude. We now have 3rd generation welfare recipients. It’s as if Welfare has become the “family business” that gets handed down from generation to generation. If we forced able-bodied to work, like was tried under Clinton in 1996, then perhaps there would not be the need for illegal aliens “taking jobs from Americans”. Let the Welfare recipients pick the fruits and vegetables now picked by illegals. Let the Welfare “thieves” work in the meat packing plants, clean the hotels, work in restaurants. These are all necessary jobs that can be done by Americans who are too lazy to look for work. Mind you, there are those who need “Entitlements”, but they are few and far between compared to the numbers who get our tax money handouts.
LikeLike
When something of worth is free, the demand for it increases.
And the availability of it decreases.
Makes sense?
Therefore, to keep it up, you have to take more from those who produce it.
Until they shrug it off their shoulders.
In a large economy, that may take a long time.
But someday, it has to happen.
LikeLike
So, Chas. Will you make a promise that if elected President you will do al in your power to reduce entitlements to only those in true need? Will you tell those who ar able bodied that they have to get and keep a job for 12 months before they can ever again think of getting welfare?
And will you swear that you will not take Social Security for the years you are in office? After all, with a $400k/year salary, who needs SSI?
LikeLike
I saw this comment at this comic site today. Gotta like it:
1982 – We had Ronald Reagan, Steve Jobs, Johnny Cash and Bob Hope.
1997 – We had Bill Clinton, still had Steve Jobs, Johnny Cash, and Bob Hope.
2012 – We’ve got Barack Obama, no jobs, no cash, and no hope!
LikeLike
Hey Matt
I’ve been reading Levin’s article an assorted others — one thing I don’t get, with other costs associated with Medicare/caid + private health insurance wouldn’t the amount we pay per patient and effectiveness treatment ratios increase vis-a-vis other western countries/models vice decrease?
Ricky
Your car and your health are different I would observe. The rational consumer when it comes to a car will opt for fewer options and a less expensive model. If your doc however says your kid or wife needs x battery of tests, you may seek a second opinion and if you find agreement go forward with the tests — it’s not as optional a thing. I can live without a DVD player in my car, but a CAT/MRE or biopsy on that lump — not so much.
PeterL
I do agree that welfare has become too much a generational way of being — partly that’s because welfare with housing and so forth is often better financially than having a job as a janitor. Wages need to be adequate and affordable housing and child care needs to be present as well — those need fixing.
Chas
On Bush, Rush L is delusional. Bush pushed through medicare part D. Bush’s budgets did not account for the costs of 2 wars. When Bush had the chance to ask people to sacrifice to pay for those wars and to put their backs into fixing the deficit, he suggested we should all shop more. He was also one of the big movers behind leave no child behind. Bush was no conservative, imo.
LikeLike
People will definitely have to qualify for entitlements. Social Security has to go down gradually. I like Ryan’s plan. We need to reform the way the bureaucracy works. That is the main problem, the bureaucrats. They advertise for food stamp recipients.
I will not increase funding for agencies because of increased demand.
Lots of changes need to be made to the way bureaucrats work.
From what I’ve read, Romney may be able to do that. The problem is easy to see for those who look at it.
Agencies have to spend all of their budget, or it gets reduced.
If you take on more responsibility, you get more high pay grades.
Military officers can advance their careers by (1) fighting wars, or (2) managing large, expensive programs.
LikeLike
I have followed Big Bush since he ran for the Senate in 1970. I have followed Little Bush since he ran for Congress in 1978. Neither is, was or ever has been a conservative. When Reagan was nominated in 1980, I should have been very happy. I was not, because he had picked Bush as his VP. I feared (correctly) that Bush would be elected after Reagan and would begin to undo (remember “kinder and gentler”) all that Reagan had done. I stopped listening to Rush because he defended the Bushes. I failed to see that not only would we elect Big Bush, but that we would also elect his kid, who was basically a second coming of LBJ: out of control domestic spending, including new entitlement programs and terrible damage to the military through mismanaged wars.
LikeLike
Good morning all, Chas, I agree with your posts at 9:13. CB, The truth about consumer healthcare behavior is complex. I deal with these issues regularly. If the patient is a child or young adult, your statement is correct in that “money is no object”. This is why private health insurance became popular and widespread.
Most of our healthcare spending is on the elderly. For the elderly, the issue is much more complex. Pauline made a very good point above. The elderly would often forego surgery if they had to pay even a small part of the cost. I wish I had a dollar for every knee replacement on a 91 year old or heart surgery on a 84 year old I have seen that actually reduced the patient’s quality and/or length of life. These surgeries took place because they make money for the providers and cost the patient nothing if the patient has Medicare and a good supplement.
LikeLike
Another sad dose of truth. Pretend it has been 47 years since the implementation of Autocare and Autoaid. Our entire car industry is now designed to produce those $100,000 cars the government has been buying for people for half a century. Think how easy it’s going to be to go back to a market approach. Think how our spoiled populace will like the features on a $25,000 car.
LikeLike
Chas
I dislike the one plank — agencies spend all of their money or it gets reduced. Agencies then have no incentive to save on costs because it is a zero sum game. Agencies should be rewarded for cutting costs and saving cash by having their budget requests considered more favorably — that would cause managers to evaluate much more carefully rather than rush to spend all they have.
On pay grades — there should also be some incentive for gaining expertise. Not everyone is cut out for management, but if you are the a number one strategic war planner and you have trained in that area, there should be some incentive for developing that expertise, for example.
LikeLike
CB, that is not a plank. That is the situation today, and has been for a long time.
I worked part time for the USDA Soil Conservation Svc as a cartographic draftsman from 1957-1963 while in school. We always got more work at the end of the fiscal year because guys needed to spend their money.
They were doing good things, but could have been conservative, except for the regulation.
There is no reward for thrift in any bureaucracy, whether it be government, union, or corporate.
The primary purpose of a bureaucracy is to grow. Teacher’s unions, Bank of America executives, Army Map Service; they have different mission statements, but the objective is the same.
LikeLike
In our church in Virginia, I was for a short time, director of an Adult IV SS department. I wasn’t Adult IV age at the time. But naturally, there were many more women than men in that department. As they gathered before the meting started, they would chat. Mostly they chatted about ailments and going to the doctor. This, of course, is not a scientific survey, but I gathered this from overhearing the discussions.
1. Much of their physical problems are caused by the medicine they were taking. And
2. Many of them “enjoyed” going to the doctor.
I don’t understand it, but that is definitely the impression I got.
I can’t imagine what it would be like if all medicine were free.
LikeLike
Chas, What you described is a common occurrence. When my son was in high school he reported that most of his classmates who were suspended for taking/selling drugs were consuming/selling drugs from their mothers’ medicine cabinets. It seems like half of the commercials on TV are encouraging us to ask our doctor if we can take a drug. Many of the others are for law firms who will help us sue the drug manufacturer.
LikeLike
Chas
I also work in larger bureaucracy, but I don’t get why it should be so hard for Congress or the Exec to change the rules to reward thrift — and real thrift not the low bid contractor silliness (low bid is usually that way because the bidder has seriously underestimated the cost, uses substandard material and labor).
LikeLike
CB. It ain’t their money.
Also, there’s more where that came from.
It doesn’t have anything to do with reelection.
It gets reported in the media as a conglomerate billions or trillions and nobody knows what that means.
LikeLike
Yes and no Chas, if I could bump our travel budget or around the needs office budget by prudent budgeting which also allowed me to carry over money, I’d do that and wind up saving money. It’s frustrating. Not every public servant is profligate with their budget.
LikeLike
The mantra is that Republican politics are stuck in the past.
When America was trusted by her friends and feared by her enemies,
When the dollar was good money.
When people had jobs
When the net worth of families was higher,
When we could trust the Dept of Justice
etc.
LikeLike
CoyoteBlue “I will vote for the incumbent because the challenger does not make me think he will improve the situation even a little bit. “
In other words, let us vote for accelerating the train toward the cliff with the missing bridge, because at least it is what we know. All other possibilities are unknown.
LikeLike
No Xion
In other words let’s not vote for another 4 years of what we know did not work even slightly with W. Other possibilities are unknown and that’s a good thing. Repeating acts we know don’t work really don’t get us anywhere as individuals or as a nation.
Xion — you have a view and that’s terrific — you’d improve your discussions skills by stating your own views in your own words instead of trying to reword or restate mine.
Chas
Def agree that’s an issue with the R’s right now — they are stuck and some of where they are stuck is not quite accurate.
LikeLike
Testing That McClatchey article is dubious on the proportion of Wall Street to Fan and Fred loans. The 84% of subprime loans is asserted but hardly proved. It, also, assumes Fan and Fred figures that have been proven wrong by the SEC.
A far more reliable source is Peter Wallison’s WSJ articlr The Financial Crisis on Trial
The SEC fingers the government-backed mortgage buyers, not Wall Street greed. including the following:
For the first time in a government report, the complaint has made it clear that the two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) played a major role in creating the demand for low-quality mortgages before the 2008 financial crisis. More importantly, the SEC is saying that Fannie and Freddie—the largest buyers and securitizers of subprime and other low-quality mortgages—hid the size of their purchases from the market. Through these alleged acts of securities fraud, they did not just mislead investors; they deprived analysts, risk managers, rating agencies and even financial regulators of vital data about market risks that could have prevented the crisis.
LikeLike
Sorry about the above, I thought this was an older unused thread.
LikeLike