Friday, December 4, 2009

Krugman: "America can’t get control of its budget without controlling health care costs"

In so many ways, the ongoing debate about health care "reform" isn't a debate at all, but a life-and-death struggle between the new administration (and Democratic party majority) and the Party of No. For the Republicans, health care reform is now about whether President Obama is "defeated" or not and it has become a priority for them to deal him a defeat as their (presumed) first step at taking back political control. They are joined by the so-called "blue dog Democrats" (Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln) who are wittingly and unwittingly casting doubt as to the final passage of health care reform while dealing for their own perks and more than slightly un-Democratic Party interests (restrict abortion and such).

I tend to agree that ANY legislative measure that seems to require 1,000 or 2,000 pages (depending on who is decrying its size) may be too complex for ordinary humans to understand. In general, it sure would be nice to have a nice simple bill or 6 or 7 pages that does it, wouldn't it?

HOWABOUT THIS?: The public option permits ordinary citizens to "opt in" to the same plan that covers Senators and Representatives OR the equivalent Medicare/Medicaid plan. 


As for the emotionally charged issues like abortion, what's wrong with staying with the status quo? Current law under the Hyde Amendment (long in force) is straightforward and simple and we've learned to live with it. There's no change needed here. Neither offer nor implement ANY changes in this area. Period.

It's time to get on with finalizing this Bill and getting other important matters some attention in the legislative process. (Like turning the economy around. Oh, yeah. Health Care reform IS a big part of that, but there are other factors--like re-establishing some safeguards and oversight on Wall Street and banking, stimulating the economy through infrastructure investments that need to be made eventually anyway AND getting the American worked back to work.)

See the complete Krugman NY Times article which inspired today's diatribe here.

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

While I'm ordinarily a peace-nik and strive to believe that rational men and women can address their differences and resolve them peacefully, the attacks of 9/11/2001 did change the scenario worldwide -- whether we like it or not. The fools in the Bush administration not only took on a knee-jerk reaction and started the "excise Al Qaeda" campaign in Afghanistan, then they parlayed that into a needless war in Iraq. Now with Iraq supposedly "winding down" the military (which can never be wrong in always asking for "more, more!") has convinced our new President to up the stakes.

Wars have consequences. Especially wars funded with no-bid contracts that enrich friends of Cheney and company. The national balance sheet was never in better shape when Clinton left office and it was never worse than when Obama took the oath of office. We may yet see a history of the world in which the slow decline of the entire world economy can be marked from financial and war decisions made between 2001 and 2009. (I am not, by nature, a doom-sayer, but you've got to wonder.)

You've also got to wonder about the legitimacy of the current military advice about Afghanistan when Der Spiegel opines "Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric -- and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught." (See the full piece here.)