Affairs

by folkbum

John Edwards has joined the likes of Newt Gingrich and John McCain: Presidential aspirants or candidates, for whom I did not vote and for whom I will never vote, who cheated on their ailing wives and then lied about it. Sickening.

People who can't read shouldn't be allowed to do math, either.

by folkbum

Looks like I got some wingnut stupidity for my birthday this year! Two of the usual suspects--although there are probably more if I bothered to look--Owen Robinson and Fred Dooley are all a-flutter about John Edwards's health care plan. Here's Owen's version ('cause Fred's just a copycat):

Yikes! Edwards wants a plan to force people to see a doctor on his schedule. [. . .] So much for freedom. This is what I mean when I say that when the government controls your health care, they control everything about you.

But I also found this interesting…

Edwards said his plan would cost up to $120 billion a year,

Really? Healthy Wisconsin, the government-run health care program proposed by the Democrats, is projected to cost $15.2 billion per year.

Wisconsin’s population is about 5.5 million people. At $15.2 billion, Healthy Wisconsin comes out to $2763.64 per person.

The U.S. has a population of about 300 million people. At $120 billion, Edwards’ plan comes out to about $400 per person.

John Edwards proposed his health care plan (.pdf) in February, and Owen's just now getting around to whining about it. The thing that has him most upset--the required preventive care--has been in the news since at least June, according to the clippings on Edwards's website.

Here's Owen's problem: he hasn't freaking read John Edwards's plan. It's obvious, because if he had, he wouldn't have made the stupid mistakes he does. There are at least two: Well, the preventive care thing is not necessarily a mistake, but I think Owen's got it wrong. Edwards would provide incentives to get that care, and, long-run, that's exactly the kind of thing that will bring down health care costs. My employer, for example, has just started mandating some level of preventive care, and it's being hailed as a great innovation! The Edwards plan, as I read it, also does not provide for punishment for not receiving preventive care:

Health Care Markets will offer primary and preventive services at little or no cost. Incentives like lower premiums will reward individuals who schedule free physicals and enroll in healthy living programs. [. . .] Health Care Markets will encourage plans to monitor patients’ health to keep them out of the emergency room. For example, plans can pay for nutritional counseling for diabetic patients to help them make healthy choices and control their blood sugar levels.

It sounds to me, just like the newly-instituted innovative plan from my employer, that I won't get fired or arrested for not getting preventive care; rather, I just won't get the incentives. (And, you know, die sooner.)

Owen's second mistake is perhaps the most laughable. This is where Owen insists that the Edwards plan will provide health care to every man, woman, and child in the country for $400 a pop. This is the kind of mistake only someone who didn't bother to get his facts right would make. Here's Ezra Klein writing about the Edwards plan (back in, you know, February):

[The plan] puts the onus of the responsibility for funding health coverage on employers, a decision I don't quite understand. The employers can satisfy that responsibility by either providing comprehensive care, or helping employees purchase from a menu of insurance options provided by newly formed, state-run "Health Markets." [. . .]

Where the Edwards' plan takes a big step forward is in mandating, along with the private options, that HMs offer "at least one plan [that] would be a public program based upon Medicare." And the intent is explicit: "Health Markets will offer a choice between private insurers and a public insurance plan modeled after Medicare, but separate and apart from it. Families and individuals will choose the plan that works best for them. This American solution will reward the sector that offers the best care at the best price. Over time, the system may evolve toward a single-payer approach if individuals and businesses prefer the public plan."

In other words, the public sector will finally be allowed to compete with the private sector, and consumers will be able to decide which style they prefer.

The easy answer is that the Edwards plan will not take tax money to pay for everyone in the country. It is universal only in the sense that it requires everyone to be covered, not that we all pay for it. This is fundamental, and easily gathered from even a superficial reading of the plan or even the most cursory googling.

From Fred, it wouldn't be surprising, but from Owen, I expect better.

(Aside: The comments sections at both of those posts linked above degenerated into "YOU'RE A SOCIALIST!" - "YOU'RE A HEARTLESS PIG!" flame wars, and no one really bothered to point out the fundamental error. However, one of the most ardent in there of the "YOU'RE A SOCIALIST!" camp is frequent commenter here Dan. One of Dan's favorite questions is, "why not let the government go into the free market by offering health insurance?" Here is one recent iteration, from the comments to Keith's cancer post. Given the way the Edwards plan explicitly calls for exactly that, you'd think Dan would love it. But it seems Dan didn't bother to read the plan, either. Sigh.)

Double Standards in Action

by folkbum

I was so excited to wake up this morning to read all the news stories about Mitt Romney's $300 makeover.

And then I woke up for real. Of course there are no such news stories. Stupid dream!

McIlheran Watch: Waiting for denunciation

by folkbum

I would also accept it from Dad29 or Rick Esenberg, or any one of the dozens of other Right Cheddarsphereans who had their undies bunched about two bloggers hired by the John Edwards for President Campaign. What will they say about a campaign chairman?

In 1997, shortly after I finished grad school, I started working at Americans United for Separation of Church and State. My very first project, literally in my first week, dealt with a Republican member of South Carolina’s Board of Education, who wanted to impose Christianity on public school students. When one of his colleagues on the board alluded to concerns about religious minorities in the state, this board member said, on tape, “Screw the Buddhists and kill the Muslims. And put that in the minutes.”

The guy’s name was Henry Jordan. I got to work trying to force his resignation, but to no avail. I helped drum up some media interest, but the GOP establishment in South Carolina stood by Jordan, the response from local voters was tepid, and he kept his job looking out for the educational needs of children.

This week, my old friend Jordan got a new political gig.

Republican presidential candidate Duncan Hunter on Thursday named … former state Rep. Tom Marchant and Dr. Henry Jordan campaign co-chairmen.

I suppose you could say that John Edwards has about a billion percent better chance of winning the Democratic nomination than Duncan Hunter does of winning the Republican nomination, and therefore Hunter doesn't merit the same close examination of his staff. I suppose you could also say that McIlheran, Esenberg, and 29 are Catholic and, therefore, don't pay attention to people who hate other religions. I suppose you could also say that the double standard remains firmly in place, so I shouldn't hold my breath.

In any case, I feel I should at least get the Duncan Hunter "screw the Budhists and kill the Muslims" story out there for you--an elected official speaking in his capacity as an elected official (as opposed, you know, to a couple of bloggers on their personal blogs) now chairing a campaign for president who suffers from far worse religious intolerance than any campaign employee we have seen yet in this election season. Let the denunciations begin.

2008 Thoughts

by folkbum

Katherine Skiba's got another big wet sloppy kiss for Tommy Thompson in this morning's paper, prompted in part, I'm sure, by the 2008 field's expansion over the weekend. (By the way, Kathy, it's not news that "Thompson likes his prospects." It would be news if "Thompson admits he's running a vanity campaign." Remember, you're looking for a man-bites-dog story.) Anyway, that story's prompted some thoughts from me about 2008. Let's start with Republicans.

I've said before--and will keep saying it until someone proves me wrong--that the Republican to be reckoned with is Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor. I say this for two reasons. First, aside from Huckabee, here's what the Republican field looks like right now:

1. The Desert Flip-Flopper
2. The Yankee Adulterer
3. The Mormon Flip-Flopper
4. The Southern Adulterer
5. Kansas's Second Least-Popular Senator
6. The Texas Libertarian
7. Tommy!
8. Duncan Hunter

You can see how Huckabee, a very conservative, very Christian, very unblemished-by-scandal candidate, would look appealing against all of them. He's personable, has a great biography (including a great weight-loss story), and has demonstrated his willingness to buck the anti-tax fiscal conservatives in favor of the social conservatives, who will do a lot of the heavy lifting in the primaries. His book (they all write books) was not your standard "Ain't I Great?" tome, but rather a call for small, positive action to make the readers' lives, and the world, a little bit better.

In short, he scares the crap out of me.

On the Democrats' side, I will repeat what I've said before about Hillary: I really, really, really want to have an election sometime in my lifetime without someone named Bush or Clinton on the ballot. Please. (Technically, 1976 was "in my lifetime," but I obviously couldn't vote then.) We don't--we shouldn't--have an aristocracy in this country; another eight years of a Clinton would make it feel uncomfortably like we do.

I have little doubt that Hillary would make a good president--and I think she can, indeed, win--so I will vote for/ volunteer for/ get excited about her candidacy should she be the nominee. But I don't think I'll be connecting the arrow next to her name.

As for Barack Obama, I will again repeat myself: I think so few people know much about about him, except his rock-star vibe, that they are projecting onto him what they want in a candidate, which is not necessarily what he has. On the other hand, being a rock star is a big part of the battle--there is little question that he's got the genuine charisma that catapulted Bill Clinton to the top in 1992. And, from what little I do know about him, I think I will also be quite pleased to be talking about a President Obama someday.

John Edwards is at least a better-known quantity than Obama, and he's been making a lot of good moves so far in terms of talking about his issue--poverty. There is no question that Edwards's "Two Americas" frame is perhaps the most powerful one out there. And I really appreciate that he's been calling Bush's Iraq troop surge the "McCain Doctrine."

I really, really like Bill Richardson, though. He is, without question, the single most qualified candidate to have announced, from either party. He's been both a Congressman and an executive; he has cabinet-level experience; he has by far the best foreign-policiy credentials of anyone to run for president since, well, ever (he just brokered a peace agreement in Darfur, for example). He may be the only candidate that, were he to call me, I would pack up and move for. But he lacks Obama's charisma, Edwards's money, and Hillary's, er, Hillaryness. That makes it hard for him to shine among those other three.

As for the rest of the field--Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Tom Vilsack, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel (Gore and Clark probably aren't running)--they will be inconsequential. Even if Vilsack does win Iowa--a big if--it will be dismissed as home-field advantage, and everyone will instead watch Nevada.

Perhaps the most interesting news is that California is looking to move its primary up to be second after New Hampshire. This helps both Hillary (she has the money to run there and everywhere else at once) and Richardson (if he can mobilize the Hispanic voters).

So those are my thoughts, with a little less than a year until Iowa gets us started. Any questions?