Medicare

Sixth Republican Debate

by asmwizard

On September 22, 2011, the sixth debate was hosted by Google and Fox News in Orlando, Florida.   The moderators were Bret Baier (anchor), Megyn Kelly, and Chris Wallace.   There were nine candidates: Romney, Perry, Bachman, Paul, Gingrich, Santorum, Cain, Huntsman, and Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico.  Johnson, like Paul, is a Libertarian.   He made the crazy promise to submit a balanced budget the first year he’s president.  I’d love to see how he’d cut things, and how the public would react to it. 

This struck me as the best conducted, fairest debate thus far.  Even though Perry and Romney were again placed in the center, there were very few long shots of the candidates, so it was hard to be influenced by the suggested pecking order implied by the arrangement.  While Perry and Romney received the most face time, it was much more fairly distributed.  When a candidate spoke, the camera focused on him or her.

In my opinion, Romney and Gingrich were the clear winners, with Bachman, Cain, and Huntsman giving strong performances.  Paul was up and down, Santorum did reasonably well but didn’t help himself much.  Johnson’s performance was not impressive.  Perry took a major hit during the debate, and the promise of an even greater one in the Fox News Shawn Hannity’s interview with Michelle Bachman after the debate.  I think Perry now has no chance to win.   I’ll explain.

The others took Perry to task on his support for allowing illegal immigrants to attend Texas universities and receive in-state tuition rates.   Students (legal citizens) from the other 49 states who want to attend the University of Texas have to pay full rates.  Romney pointed out that this is worth about $100,000 over four years, and he and Romney criticized it sharply – it’s an incentive to come to America.   It shows incredibly bad judgment, and I believe this is a crushing hit for Perry. 

But, there’s more.  In the post-debate program, Bachman talked with Shawn Hannity about the mandated vaccination of young girls ordered by Perry, and said the worst thing about it was that the company providing the vaccine had contributed to Perry, and a former top aide of his worked for them.  In other words, this was pay-for-play cronyism – a form of corruption — of the kind we’ve see around Obama (Examples: the Petrobas loans to support oil drilling in Brazil, considering that George Soros had a large investment in Petrobas;  the Solyndra fiasco; and the Light Squared affair, among others.)   Bachman indicated there are other evidences of corruption of the same kind in Perry’s terms as governor of Texas.  This wasn’t the first time I had heard of it.  Such things will come out, and in my opinion will be too much for Perry.  He’s toast.  As someone wrote on Politico.com, he’s Texas Toast.

Newt helped himself with solid answers, and received several favorable references from other candidates during the debate.   I’m not counting him out yet, despite his problems.  I believe he’ll begin to rise in the polls, but as of now I’d bet on Romney as the eventual nominee, with Gingrich as the dark horse.  That could change.

 

Fifth Republican Debate — CNN/Tea Party

by asmwizard

The Tea Party hosted a debate in Florida on September 12, on CNN with Wolf Blitzer.  The huge Tea Party crowd in attendance  was extremely friendly to the candidates, all of whom seemed totally at ease.   All questions came from the audience, both present there and in groups located around the country.  Wolf Blitzer was the sole moderator, and did a very good job, in my opinion.  It may have been the fairest of the debates thus far — for participation time and number of questions directed to candidates other than Perry and Romney, but the speaking time was again dominated by the two leaders.   This happened because Romney and Perry were constantly attacked, by each other and by other candidates, so they received lots of rebuttal time.   A few times, the two went back and forth with each other without Blitzer’s intervention.  As in the last debate, Perry and Romney were placed in the center.  In my view, this is unfair to the other candidates.  Stage placement should be randomly assigned.

Topics discussed included job creation, the economy, Social Security and Medicare reform, tax reform, and illegal immigration.  Romney was pounded by others for his Massachusetts health care plan and lack of job creation, while Perry was sharply criticized for his mandate in Texas to have young girls given vaccine shots to prevent cervical cancer, as well as his views on Social Security – the “Ponzi Scheme” remark.  Perry admitted he made a mistake in the way he handled the issue but maintained it was right to prevent loss of life.   Michelle Bachmann was particularly hard on Perry for the mandate, trying to make a distinction between the right to opt out, as given by Perry to the parents of the girls, to the right to opt in, which Bachman said should have been specified. 

The only other candidate to receive criticism was Ron Paul, who was booed by a few of the crowd at one point when he commented that the 9/11 attack was America’s fault for not staying at home.  Rick Santorum attacked him sharply for that.  

While the polls may decide otherwise, I believe that Perry and Romney were hurt somewhat by the constant attacks they received, even though they responded well.  They weren’t able to totally dismiss the criticisms.  One charge, that Merc political donations were the real reason Perry gave the vaccine mandate, was made by Bachmann – Perry said the donation was only five thousand dollars, out of thirty million he received, and he was offended that Michelle thought that was enough to buy him.   After the debate, CNN commentator Paul Begalla remarked that crony capitalism would become a persistent issue for Perry.   

Michelle Bachmann probably helped herself more than anyone else.  She was sharp and on the attack.  Newt Gingrich again made sharp, astute comments and didn’t hurt himself.  Rick Santorum was good but may have helped Newt more, with several references to things Newt had said – endorsing Gingrich’s ideas with phrases like:   “As Newt said . . . “   I’d say Gingrich should have helped himself but polls may show that it makes little difference how he does.   Santorum constantly referred  to himself as courageous, and repetition wasn’t persuasive.

Huntsman and Cain were solid.  Huntsman may rise a bit.  Cain gave his best performance and is beginning to appear competent.  Paul would probably sink like a rock if he didn’t have the support of other Libertarians, who may be as crazy as he is. 

 

Fourth Republican Debate

by asmwizard

Having MSNBC conduct a Republican debate reminded me of a cannibal tribe inviting tourists to dinner.  Aired September 7, 2011, it struck me that it was conducted very unfairly, with Romney and Perry receiving most of the speaking time.  It was like Perry and Romney and the six dwarfs.   I’d say Perry and Romney together were given more than 50 per cent of the time, with the other six candidates subsisting poorly on the residue.  The two governors were repeatedly questioned, and received many followups.  In descending order of speaking time for the other six, I’d rate Cain and Huntsman as about tied, then Bachman and Paul, and least of all Gingrich and Santorum.  I’d guess each of the latter two had less than  5 percent of the time.   It must have been very disheartening for them to have question after question directed at Perry and Romney, and fewer for the other participants, with only about 3 each for Gingrich and Santorum.   The moderators constantly tried to get the candidates to comment negatively about each other.   Of course, so did Fox News in the third debate.

Once again, Mitt Romney made no mistakes, wasn’t rattled while constantly attacked,  and likely won the debate.  Perry was also constantly attacked, stuck to his guns, and likely took a hit on his perfectly valid “Ponzi scheme” reference to Social Security, because he failed to explain why Social Security must eventually fail if nothing is done.  Another sacred Liberal cow he kicked was the science of Global Warming.  He said it isn’t settled science – which is true, but not popular with the Left.   I suspect he will slip a bit in the polls because of what he said tonight – the New York Times will no doubt lead the Liberal charge against him.    

The post debate analysis on MSNBC was dominated by Liberals, highlighted by Chris Mathews, who was aghast that someone like Perry – with his questioning of science —  could become president.  Their consensus was that Michelle Bachman, who handled herself well and had specific ideas, nonetheless has slipped to second tier, and thought it was evident tonight.  I suppose there is a case that she has slipped.   Ron Paul was his usual daffy self.  Huntsman was well spoken, for the most part, and may have helped himself.   Cain pushed his 9-9-9 plan: 9 per cent corporate tax, 9 per cent income tax (a flat tax), and 9 per cent sales tax.   He didn’t explain it very well.  He didn’t impress me very much.

Santorum and Gingrich were good in very limited time.  Each time Gingrich spoke he drew applause.  I think he was only allowed to talk 3 times, or 4 tops.  Santorum was logical and well-spoken but received little applause.   He was quizzed about being Catholic. 

I would have preferred to see the questioning spread around more fairly.  Each candidate should have received the same number of questions, and about the same amount of rebuttal time, which is of course controlled by the moderators.  That didn’t happen.

Rebuttal–Paul Krugman, “Medicare works better than private insurance”

by asmwizard

I subscribe to and read the Kansas City Star, where Paul Krugman’s column frequently appears.  Krugman may be the most liberal columnist since Karl Marx.  Needless to say I rarely agree with even a single sentence in his columns.  His version of the truth is so different from my own that I want to argue against him – but the Star doesn’t allow it – a letter to the editor is restricted to 200 words or less, and you can’t say much of anything in 200 words.  Of course, if you could properly respond, they wouldn’t print it anyway.  The Star has a Liberal bias, and they print more Liberal than Conservative letters.  I’ve learned it’s best not even to try.

There is a column by Krugman in today’s Star (July 27, 2011) that riles me.  My opinion is that his stupidity is matched only by his ignorance.  Unfortunately, it is not on his website today, so I’ll have to paraphrase.  It will likely appear on his website in a few days.  Krugman’s website

The title of is column and the main idea is that “Medicare works better than private insurance.”  This statement may be true for the Democrat Party – which loves to support and promote entitlements — but in general it’s the reverse of the truth. 

The article is primarily designed to bash Republicans, but Obama comes in for a share as well, although his bashing is more subtle. 

He begins by stating that “what the president offered to the GOP, especially on Medicare, was a very bad deal.  Specifically, according to many reports, the president offered both means-testing of Medicare recipients and a rise in the age of medicare eligibility.”    Krugman goes on to say, “The first would be bad policy; the second would be terrible policy.”  My view: means testing is one of the few areas where cuts should be made in Medicare.   Should millionaires receive it?  I don’t think so.  I’d begin reducing benefits at net levels of around $50,000 of net taxable income for single persons, and $75,000 for married couples, and cut them off completely above $100,000 and $150,000, respectively.  That would cut the medicare enrollment significantly.  Paul Krugman, no doubt a wealthy man, will have to take out his own insurance if I have my way.  I think the Medicare age should be the same as the Social Security retirement age.

He goes on: “And throwing Americans in their mid-60’s off Medicare . . .”  My response: No plan I’ve seen envisions making any change whatever in eligibility to those currently receiving Medicare (except possibly Obamacare – which purports to cut 800 billion dollars out of it, somehow, in 10 years.) 

He goes on: “Medicare, with all it’s flaws, works better than private insurance . . . It has been more successful in controlling costs.”  Where to begin?  Medicare is to doctors as pro bono work is to lawyers.  The government controls how much a doctor is paid for each procedure or test.   Doctors have to write off the difference.
Some rebel – they stop taking Medicare patients.  Future plans, especially those propounded by Democrats, propose to reduce pay even further.  Private insurance pays a percentage of the doctor’s usual charges.  Since Medicare shortchanges doctors, they respond by raising their usual rates.  This increases health care costs for everyone.

Krugman:  “Also, did I mention that Republicans are doing all they can to undermine health care reform – they even tried to undermine it as part of the debt negotiations – and may eventually succeed?  If they do, many of those losing Medicare coverage would find themselves unable to replace it.”  This is nothing but the most despicable demagoguery.  The determination to revoke Obamacare  doesn’t mean Republicans want to undermine health care.  Here Krugman reveals how immensely biased he is.  Republicans have suggested many ideas to reform health care, and all are intended to reduce the cost without losing effectiveness.  Democrats didn’t accept a single Republican amendment to Obamacare, which they had to pass without a single Republican vote.

Krugman’s article is largely directed at the Ryan plan, although he doesn’t mention it specifically.  I could go on about this ridiculous column, but that’s enough for now.