Ezramesh Strikes Back! (Ezra Klein & Ramesh Ponnuru)

[Bloggingheads]

[Gravy]

It confuses me that subsidies to health care are such an important element of the debate. It seems like you start at a point that health care is incredibly important an therefore insurance coverage must be mandated and end up implying that, without subsidies that move pretty far up the income ladder, people will either evade the mandate or bitterly resent paying for it. It is critically important so long as it doesn't interfer with next month's cable TV service, but if an individual or family is forced to choose between them, then the (political) sky is going to fall down.

[nikkibong]

ezramesh dissects mitt romney's electoral appeal:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/229...2:58&out=03:26

[piscivorous]

Just a little anecdotal on mandated insurance and it's effects. Health Care Speechwriter for Edwards, Obama & Clinton Without Insurance Now

In D.C., I had a policy with a national company, an HMO, and surprisingly I was very happy with it. I had a fantastic primary care doctor at Georgetown University Hospital. As a self-employed writer, my premium was $225 a month, plus $10 for a dental discount.

In Massachusetts, the cost for a similar plan is around $550, give or take a few dollars. My risk factors haven't changed. I didn't stop writing and become a stunt double. I don't smoke. I drink a little and every once in a while a little more than I should. I have a Newfoundland dog. I am only 41. There has been no change in the way I live my life except my zip code -- to a state with universal health care.

[DenvilleSteve]

I think Tom Coburn would be a great president. But, addressing the question of where are the republicans of ability who want to run for president, maybe they are out there, but don't want the job of governing so many democrats. Imagine the sound of 150 million stamping their feet and demanding their handouts. The savaging that democrat policy types inflict on a person is plenty of reason why republicans of ability would decide against pursuing the job.

I think the question of why new leaders of the country are not stepping forward will be moot once the financial meltdown of the nation occurs. Hopefully decent people will be able to band together and protect themselves from the mayhem.

[timba]

The trouble with you two is that you've got beltway blindness.

Not once in this hour of wankery do you address the elephants in the room:

1) The senators you're giving credibility to are not credible. They receive millions from corporations and legislate in complete opposition to the desires of their constituents. They're crooks who take bribes. A HUGE majority of nearly every demographic wants legislation that protects people and punishes insurance companies. SEVERELY punishes them because they're crooked, selfish, anti-American, and flat out evil.

2) You are young, healthy and have company insurance. You choose to ignore the fact that millions of us out here are getting absolutely f###ed over by these companies. Our lives, our savings, our families - all of them at extreme risk. We elected freaking Obama to address this and we're getting railroaded by crooks and phony media intellectuals like yourselves.

3) And YOU, Ramesh, are completely full of crap. Your economic policies have wreaked so much havoc with our economy and now you sit back and try to pretend to be fiscally responsible about the public option? THERE ARE NO JOBS. WE CAN'T GET INSURANCE POLICIES. The middle class is completely dead. It's getting worse and worse at an accelerating pace. It started with Reagan. It was your stupid selfish idiot idea and we did it and it failed and now everything is f***ed and it's your fault, so don't you even think about lecturing about fiscal responsibility.

Our here in the REAL world, it's war - and it's hell - and you two are a couple of stuffed shirt elitists who are so out of touch that you don't even know what out of touch is. The beltway has sucked your wonky little brains dry until you're like two empty talking eggshells.

[DenvilleSteve]

Originally Posted by timba

A HUGE majority of nearly every demographic wants legislation that protects people and punishes insurance companies. SEVERELY punishes them because they're crooked, selfish, anti-American, and flat out evil.

Enable the marketplace to punish companies that treat their customers unfairly. Have less federal regulation of health insurance companies, no mandates of what they can sell to the public, no tax advantages to employer provided HI.

[Ray]

Originally Posted by piscivorous

Just a little anecdotal on mandated insurance and it's effects.

No; an anecdote. And "its effects," not 'it is effects'.

That out of the way: she didn't state her income. Her health care increased by about $2,500 a year. Why should my heart bleed for her? Is she poor? Is she even middle class?

[kezboard]

Anyway, the main point of this anecdote is that health care costs different amounts in different parts of the country. Isn't that something everyone knows by now?

[Blackadder]

The subject of the Massachusetts mandate came up in a prior Ezra Klein bloggingheads, when fellow progressive Chris Hayes described how talking with working class people in Massachusetts had led him to reconsider the wisdom of an individual mandate.

I can understand why Democrats haven't talked much about the Massachusetts experience with the sorts of reforms they are pushing (why bring up something that hurts your cause). Why the Republicans haven't made a bigger deal of it is beyond me.

[Blackadder]

Originally Posted by kezboard

Anyway, the main point of this anecdote is that health care costs different amounts in different parts of the country. Isn't that something everyone knows by now?

No, the point is that if you mandate everyone buy health insurance you shouldn't be surprised when the price of insurance goes up.

[timba]

Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve

Enable the marketplace to punish companies that treat their customers unfairly. Have less federal regulation of health insurance companies, no mandates of what they can sell to the public, no tax advantages to employer provided HI.

The insurance companies are exempted from anti-trust laws - why should they compete with each other when they can just divvy up the marks and shovel in the windfall profits, but the bottom line is that health care is just too expensive and too important to allow crooks to skim 30% or more off every transaction. It's killing the country. Deregulation has failed - no ifs ands or buts - epically failed. Enough with the neocon and libertarian experiments - you guys had your shot and you made a truly historic mess and it's time for the grownups to come in and clean it up.

The problem is that our legislature is owned by the corporations - THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED - and we need to SAY THAT every time the subject comes up, but Ezra has his hands over his eyes and Ramesh has his hands over his ears and they're both singing lalalalalalalalalala because they had a late with Senator So and So. Access journalism at its finest - what a waste of a mind.

[piscivorous]

Bingo!

[rcocean]

Originally Posted by nikkibong

ezramesh dissects mitt romney's electoral appeal:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/229...2:58&out=03:26

Ha, you fail to understand the appeal of Romney to the typical Republican. Your typical moderate/center-right Repub isn't looking to win, he's looking for someone whose:

1) An old white-man in a suit;
2) run before and lost (this is Key);
3) Is endorsed by the establishment;
4) Supported by the Chamber of Commerce;
5) Is against abortion (but only in words);
6) Supports a strong defense (Defense $$);
7) Is a poor/boring speaker';
8) Isn't an "ideologue", "Populist" or "extremist";
9) Is liked by the WSJ;
9) and is either a life-long pol war-hero or businessman.

IOW, Bush I, Ford, Dole, and McCain. The only exception is Reagan. But remember , forty Percent of the "Stupid Party" hated Ronnie and wanted George Bush in 1980. Its only because they hated Carter even more that they reluctantly nominated a "right-wing extremist".

So look for Romney in 2012, he's dull enough, moderate enough, and looks good in a suit. The nomination is his to lose.

[DenvilleSteve]

Originally Posted by timba

The insurance companies are exempted from anti-trust laws - why should they compete with each other when they can just divvy up the marks and shovel in the windfall profits, but the bottom line is that health care is just too expensive and too important to allow crooks to skim 30% or more off every transaction.

If democrats think the health insurance business is so profitable, why don't they start their own HI companies, hire the unemployed, make some money and stick to the greedy other guy?

Originally Posted by timba

It's killing the country. Deregulation has failed - no ifs ands or buts - epically failed. Enough with the neocon and libertarian experiments - you guys had your shot and you made a truly historic mess and it's time for the grownups to come in and clean it up.

Simple solution. Allow people to opt out of your federal government. Allow states to secede from the union. That gives democrats a larger majority of those who remain. Which enables them to inact even more progressive legislation. The republicans who leave get peace of mind and an opportunity to be a part of their own model community. A win, win all around.

[Ray]

Originally Posted by Blackadder

No, the point is that if you mandate everyone buy health insurance you shouldn't be surprised when the price of insurance goes up.

Goes up for whom?

It hasn't gone up for me; it hasn't gone up for my girlfriend. We live in Mass. Each of us makes under $100k.

See how easy that was?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve

I think Tom Coburn would be a great president. But, addressing the question of where are the republicans of ability who want to run for president, maybe they are out there, but don't want the job of governing so many democrats. Imagine the sound of 150 million stamping their feet and demanding their handouts. The savaging that democrat policy types inflict on a person is plenty of reason why republicans of ability would decide against pursuing the job.

I think the question of why new leaders of the country are not stepping forward will be moot once the financial meltdown of the nation occurs. Hopefully decent people will be able to band together and protect themselves from the mayhem.

What do you know about Tom Coburn's association with The Family? I like him, too, but just can't get past this link.

[timba]

Come back and read your comments here after the health insurance industry starts ruining YOUR life, Steve. You're being played.

[DenvilleSteve]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

What do you know about Tom Coburn's association with The Family? I like him, too, but just can't get past this link.

I just read this http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/20...igns-mistress/ , which is the first I know of Coburn's involvement with Ensign. Looks like Coburn and Ensign share the same house in DC. My guess is Coburn is talking to Ensign out of friendship and is advising him to make right what he has done wrong. I have no doubts regarding Coburn's ethics. If anything, he might be too straight a person to be president.

[DenvilleSteve]

Originally Posted by timba

Come back and read your comments here after the health insurance industry starts ruining YOUR life, Steve. You're being played.

In the mean time I would hope you can explain democrat thinking on the issues of the day. Will we ever get the budget deficit under control? Is the government better at running GM than private industry? To repeat on health care, if health insurance companies make large profits it is because they don't have competition bidding down the price. If we eliminate the government imposed HI mandates you will increase peoples options. Which enables more to get in the business of selling HI, which lowers the price. That has to be seen as a good thing by democrats.

[timba]

> Will we ever get the budget deficit under control?

yes - it was under control before Bush came in - even the most conservative economists agree that extreme government stimulus is the only way to prevent the Bush debacle from turning into another Great Depression. The fact that we nearly had that happen, and are still in danger of it happening, is lost on you in your low-info bubble.

>Is the government better at running GM than private industry?

Obviously yes, considering that GM killed the electric car, filled the highways with stupid gas-guzzling, terrorist-funding SUVs, failed utterly to compete with Japanese and German engineering, and then went completely belly-up, threatening to take the entire economy along with them if they weren't bailed out by taxpayers. Geez Louise - where were you going with that one? NOTE: I think that making cars should not be done be the govt. GM forced this temporary situation.

> health care

It's an even bigger disaster than GM and Wall St. It's killing us. GM and Wall Street failed due to incompetence, greed and extreme corruption, but the health industry is not incompetent in the least - it's viciously profitable. The problem is that unlike making cars, keeping the population healthy is a task that has been categorically proven to be inherently incompatible with privatization, like police and fire, and, as proven by Bush, like the military.

Your problem is that everything you're arguing for on paper has already been tried in real life in the last 9 years - and it failed catastrophically, nearly bringing down the entire financial system in the process. If you would stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and take your head out of the sand, you'd see that. And if you ever have any health or employment problems, or if you just wait a few more years, you'll have no choice but to see how badly you've been duped on health care. No amount of right wing radio will shield you from the realities of health care costs and financial ruin.

[Blackadder]

Originally Posted by Ray

Goes up for whom?

It hasn't gone up for me; it hasn't gone up for my girlfriend. We live in Mass. Each of us makes under $100k.

See how easy that was?

Since 2003 premiums in Massachusetts have gone up 40%, and another 10% increase is planned for next year. If premiums haven't gone up for you or your girlfriend, then all I can say is that your case isn't typical.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by Blackadder

Since 2003 premiums in Massachusetts have gone up 40%, and another 10% increase is planned for next year. If premiums haven't gone up for you or your girlfriend, then all I can say is that your case isn't typical.

From the second cite above:

Increases will range from 7 to 12 percent, capping a decade of consecutive double-digit premium increases, according to a Globe survey of the state’s top health insurers. Actual rates for 2010 will depend on the size of the employer and the type of coverage, with small businesses and individuals expected to be hit hardest. Overall, premiums are more than twice as high as they were 10 years ago.

You neglected to mention that the increases are part of a pattern in the state that significantly predates the 2006 mandate.

[Blackadder]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

You neglected to mention that the increases are part of a pattern in the state that significantly predates the 2006 mandate.

Um, I believe the figures I cited were "[s]ince 2003."

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by Blackadder

Um, I believe the figures I cited were "[s]ince 2003."

Then what's your point? And the pattern extends back at least to 1999.

[Blackadder]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Then what's your point? And the pattern extends back at least to 1999.

Ray said his premiums hadn't gone up. Not "they went up, but I don't think it had to do with the mandate." My point is that even if that was true for him (which I doubt) it isn't true for most people.

If what you're really asking is why I think mandating insurance leads to higher prices, the answer is simple. When you force people to buy something, you artificially increase demand, which is going to make it more expensive. The fact that prices are already rising due to other factors doesn't invalidate this (I would note that, while health care spending in Massachusetts has been rising more quickly than the U.S. for a while now, the difference in the rate of growth between Massachusetts and the U.S. increased after the mandate was enacted).

At the very least the experience of Massachusetts shows that the reforms of the Bacus bill aren't likely to stop rapid growth in health care costs. And it also raises the question: if someone could get health insurance in D.C. for half of what it costs in Massachusetts, why not let people in Massachusetts buy insurance in D.C.?

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by Blackadder

Ray said his premiums hadn't gone up. Not "they went up, but I don't think it had to do with the mandate." My point is that even if that was true for him (which I doubt) it isn't true for most people.

If what you're really asking is why I think mandating insurance leads to higher prices, the answer is simple. When you force people to buy something, you artificially increase demand, which is going to make it more expensive. The fact that prices are already rising due to other factors doesn't invalidate this (I would note that, while health care spending in Massachusetts has been rising more quickly than the U.S. for a while now, the difference in the rate of growth between Massachusetts and the U.S. increased after the mandate was enacted).

At the very least the experience of Massachusetts shows that the reforms of the Bacus bill aren't likely to stop rapid growth in health care costs. And it also raises the question: if someone could get health insurance in D.C. for half of what it costs in Massachusetts, why not let people in Massachusetts buy insurance in D.C.?

The data from MA doesn't betray any obvious relationship to the mandate - and with regard to the mandate, the issue of cost control was explicitly set aside. The Baucus bill hasn't been put into its final form, so arguments about its effects are just so much hand waving, at the moment.

And the obvious answer to the last question is that the resulting race to the bottom would decimate consumer benefit from health insurance offerings, though it would surely benefit the industry.

[bjkeefe]

Regarding Ramesh's puffery of Mitch Daniels (the hilarity of which was diluted only by the preceding, even more outlandish, puffery of Willard "Mitt" Romney), there is a valuable resource out there for an alternative perspective -- let us say somewhat less convinced of the notion that the Hoosier governor and former Bush 43 budget director "radiates competence" -- long-time Indiana resident Doghouse Riley.

See especially his posts tagged "Midwestern States Governed By Surly Megalomaniacs With Napoleonic Complexes."

[brucds]

My favorite crazy comment to date:

"I think Tom Coburn would be a great president."

Funny stuff.

[Blackadder]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

The data from MA doesn't betray any obvious relationship to the mandate - and with regard to the mandate, the issue of cost control was explicitly set aside. The Baucus bill hasn't been put into its final form, so arguments about its effects are just so much hand waving, at the moment.

At the risk of repeating myself, let me repeat myself: When you force people to buy something, you artificially increase demand, which is going to make it more expensive. The fact that prices are already rising due to other factors doesn't invalidate this.

And if the fact the Bacus bill hasn't been put into its final form means you can't comment meaningfully on its likely effects, then someone ought to tell the President, Congress, the CBO, etc.

Originally Posted by AemJeff

And the obvious answer to the last question is that the resulting race to the bottom would decimate consumer benefit from health insurance offerings, though it would surely benefit the industry.

A recent study found that allowing people to buy health insurance over state lines would reduce the number of uninsured by about 12 million. Maybe coverage in states with lower premiums is so hellish that people are better off being uninsured, but it seems unlikely. Ms. Button, for example, seems to have been happy enough with her D.C. insurance policy which cost half as much as a similar policy in Massachusetts. On what basis do you deem her D.C. policy deficient?

[Blackadder]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Regarding Ramesh's puffery of Mitch Daniels (the hilarity of which was diluted only by the preceding, even more outlandish, puffery of Willard "Mitt" Romney), there is a valuable resource out there for an alternative perspective -- let us say somewhat less convinced of the notion that the Hoosier governor and former Bush 43 budget director "radiates competence" -- long-time Indiana resident Doghouse Riley.

See especially his posts tagged "Midwestern States Governed By Surly Megalomaniacs With Napoleonic Complexes."

So I went to the above linked blog, and the first post that came up was titled "We're Ready for Your Close Up, Governor Whiny Titty Baby Pissy Pants." For some reason, this didn't leave me confident about the value of Mr. Riley's sage analysis.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by Blackadder

At the risk of repeating myself, let me repeat myself: When you force people to buy something, you artificially increase demand, which is going to make it more expensive. The fact that prices are already rising due to other factors doesn't invalidate this.

And if the fact the Bacus bill hasn't been put into its final form means you can't comment meaningfully on its likely effects, then someone ought to tell the President, Congress, the CBO, etc.



A recent study found that allowing people to buy health insurance over state lines would reduce the number of uninsured by about 12 million. Maybe coverage in states with lower premiums is so hellish that people are better off being uninsured, but it seems unlikely. Ms. Button, for example, seems to have been happy enough with her D.C. insurance policy which cost half as much as a similar policy in Massachusetts. On what basis do you deem her D.C. policy deficient?

I take it that no matter how many times I point out that the data doesn't support the pattern you'd like to find, you're going to tell me about the pattern you'd like to find.

[DenvilleSteve]

Originally Posted by brucds

My favorite crazy comment to date:

"I think Tom Coburn would be a great president."

Funny stuff.

If democrats would only give republican people a way to opt out of the federal system they would not have to hear any more complaining or crazy ideas. Let them be free.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Blackadder

So I went to the above linked blog, and the first post that came up was titled "We're Ready for Your Close Up, Governor Whiny Titty Baby Pissy Pants." For some reason, this didn't leave me confident about the value of Mr. Riley's sage analysis.

If you would like to judge thirty-five posts based on the first headline you see, that's your business. It only leaves me more confident about the wingnut interest in making an effort to understand what someone is saying (zero) and the wingnut capacity for fauxtrage (infinite).

[Added] I will say, however, that you probably deserve some sort of award, for being the fastest instantiation of Perlstein's Law.

[rfrobison]

Couple of things:

Shouting match going on at the "National Review"? Geez it's rude to have a dialvlog in a place where we can't hear what either person is saying.

Second, Mr. Ponnuru's voice doesn't seem to match his face. Don't know why a guy with an Indian (?) ancestry can't have a nasal voice, but he shouldn't.

Third, is there anybody who can explain to me why Bobby Jindal is already a has-been? They say he gave a bad speech...One bad speech and you're out? Personally, I'd like to hear more from him.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by rfrobison

Third, is there anybody who can explain to me why Bobby Jindal is already a has-been? They say he gave a bad speech...One bad speech and you're out? Personally, I'd like to hear more from him.

You mean from the guy who wrote this? I hope he's a has-been, before he screws up science education is his state and elsewhere completely.

[rfrobison]

Sorry, Jeff,

But I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove as far as Jindal's unfitness for higher office. That he's a Christian and concerned with spiritual matters? Better impeach Obama, then. That his state doesn't score well in education and is populated by a lot of six-day creationists? By that score I guess Clinton should never have been president.

Jindal is just the kind of Republican that people on the left say they WANT on the other side of the aisle: intelligent, thoughtful, and someone who actually knows something about policy.

I suspect that they'd just about rather face anybody than a minority Rhodes Scholar Republican...which may explain the eagerness of the grand poobahs in the commentariat to smother Jindal's political career in the crib, as it were.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by rfrobison

Sorry, Jeff,

But I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove as far as Jindal's unfitness for higher office. That he's a Christian and concerned with spiritual matters? Better impeach Obama, then. That his state doesn't score well in education and is populated by a lot of six-day creationists? By that score I guess Clinton should never have been president.

Jindal is just the kind of Republican that people on the left say they WANT on the other side of the aisle: intelligent, thoughtful, and someone who actually knows something about policy.

I suspect that they'd just about rather face anybody than a minority Rhodes Scholar Republican...which may explain the eagerness of the grand poobahs in the commentariat to smother Jindal's political career in the crib, as it were.

You want to go to church on Sunday? I have no problem with that. Taking exorcisms seriously, as if that was a sane approach to anything? I start to question your fitness for real responsibility of any kind. Sign legislation jeopardizing the education of millions of children? This is not the kind of politician the Left wants to see in office.

I don't care about his party or his political philosophy. If he can't or won't understand the existence of a wall between religious belief and secular science, and is willing to ignore that distinction in legislation, then he has no business in public office. His political career is not in the "crib," it's all grown up and has a graduate degree. We shouldn't aim to smother it, we need a lawful, public execution.

[rfrobison]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

You want to go to church on Sunday? I have no problem with that taking exorcisms seriously, as if that was a sane approach to anything? I start to question your fitness for real responsibility of any kind. Sign legislation jeopardizing the education of millions of children? This is not the kind of politician the Left wants to see in office.

I don't care about his party or his political philosophy. If he can't or won't understand the existence of a wall between religious belief and secular science, and is willing to ignore that distinction in legislation, then he has no business in public office. His political career is not in the "crib," it's all grown up and has a graduate degree. We shouldn't aim to smother it, we need a lawful, public execution.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Article 6, U.S. Constitution


Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by rfrobison

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Article 6, U.S. Constitution


Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

I didn't mention a legal test. I said I believe he's unfit to serve, and I said why. What I did talk about was his failure to distinguish between the religious and secular - something that is enshrined in the Constitution.