Sullivan Responds: Unserious, Really?

Andrew Sullivan responds to my previous post. At no point did I ascribe the drug entitlement portion of America's debt to Obama as he falsely claims. However, in that regard, were Sullivan being both "serious" and honest, he would be forced to admit that Obama's ultimate intentions regarding health care most certainly will multiply government spending related to health care several fold. So, does Andrew fancy that we'll just lay that off on the rich, or is the fiscally conservative Sullivan endorsing large tax increases across the board for a new government entitlement along with whatever else might be needed for social security?

Unfortunately, his real offense is continuing to cast the Tea Party movement purely in terms of Republican versus Democrat, as it's the only way he can see the world of political ideas just now. That isn't the case and, frankly, I'd prefer the movement stay as far away from partisan politics as it can for as long as it can, while realizing that's ultimately impractical. Eventually one party or the other is going to have to take the lead on fiscal responsibility should the American people demand it. As a registered Independent, that's the party I'll be supporting going forward. I doubt self-described fiscal conservative Andrew Sullivan can say the same thing with any degree of honesty. That one point alone renders his entire attack on the Tea Party movement both unserious, as well as dishonest. Evidently The Atlantic no longer demands silly inconveniences like that from its writers.

But Riehl's notion that Obama is "driving up the debt several times whatever Bush did" doesn't make any sense. Take the biggest tranch of the future debt - $32 trillion of a new Medicare drug entitlement - that Riehl ascribes to Obama. Nuh-huh. Obama inherited that commitment, with no provision for funding it, from the Republicans.

These people are unserious. But we knew that already.

Comments

[Zach]

"Obama's ultimate intentions regarding health care most certainly will multiply government spending related to health care several fold."

The whole point of Obama's health plan is cost control through increased efficiency and bargaining for prices. You might not like this incursion of government into healthcare -- fine -- but it will lower costs. With a public insurance option, government spending will increase if you count premiums taken in and then spent as government spending. However, "several fold" is entirely wrong. The government currently pays for roughly half of American health expenditures, and costs per patient will go down with universal coverage. By definition, the cost would double at most in a completely nationalized system.

[Dan Riehl]

Sure, Zach - because the government said so. I seriously doubt the cost benefit ratio will be a plus in the end.

[13yankeebravo]

Anyone that wants the government involved any more than they are should ask any older vet about the Champus paper shuffle.

[nina]

No, it doesn't lower cost. As to efficiency look at the VA hospitals or take a trip to Canada. England another disaster. They attempt to lower cost by denying care. Look at the HMO system and you'll see the future. Believe me I am physician who's worked in the VA system . In France and England (both nationalized) the number #1 insurance product sold is private health insurance, that is in addition to paying very high taxes to fund their public systems.

[Sally]

I'm no expert in health care but it seems more likely than not that massive government intervention in health care will most likely mean cost containment achieved through treatment modification. Does anyone really believe that if the government is in charge we are going to see major advances in medical care?

[mark l.]

"Obama inherited that commitment, with no provision for funding it, from the Republicans."

I don't get the logic. bush debt 'smaller, bad'. obama debt 'larger, good'.

The measuring stick that has been used, forever, before obama, was debt. Since the congress of 94, along with the clinton presidency(by hook or by crook) established a new standard in govt spending, which both parties quickly offer up as the first sign of their previous success.

after judging every president in the past for their ability to fund govt within its means, Sullivan can't see that there is an enormous shift in what the new standard will be.

The dems have been living off the talking points-"reagan exploded our debt with deficit spending" and "bush bankrupted our country with the Iraq war". thanks to bambi, I'll never have to hear it again.

obama's very straightfoward plan will produce 9 trillion in debt, without even attempting to balance the budget, beyond cutting it in half in eight years. What's funny is that they fired the guy at gm, becuase his business was run poorly and funded by an exploding debt.

When a president gives up on balancing the budget in 8 years, I wouldn't be optimistic about his ability to manage anything.

[Shawn]

Consider this: even if I were to agree that European nations with government run programs ration health care (which I don't agree they do) why wouldn't I accept rationing to have their life expectancies?

Life expectancy rankings:
Sweden - #5, Switzerland - #7, France - #8, Canada - #10, etc. US - #30. If this is what rationing means to my long term survival then I say bring it on!

Your response to Andrew's post still does answer the question he has regarding the "tea parties": Are these parties calling for the reduction/elimination of the three largest debts to our country (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid)? If not, then what do they stand for? How would those attending reduce our long term debt obligations and bring the country back in to the black?

In terms of future debt it is these three programs that make up the bulk of it. Not the stimulus package, etc.

[Jim Treacher]

Apparently the Atlantic demands nothing but traffic, without much concern for how it's generated.

[rtl]

Shawn - You assume that "health care" is the only factor in life expectancy. For example, wouldn't inner city crime and the too numerous premature deaths skew life expectancy downward? Of course there are other major lifestyle differences between the U.S. and the Euro way of life (auto-related deaths). Learn something about statistics please.

[mark l.]

average life expectancy for my family, born after 1900?

including those still alive and older than 65 with the deceased...
86 years old-there are a lot of smokers and drinkers in the numbers. the average will also increase over time.

in my families case, access to health care is one of the smallest factors in determining life expectancy, when compared to genetics.

yes, healthcare will keep you going, extending yor life, but it is only there to remedy inherent genetic shortcomings.

These life expectancy comparisons are more a result of genetics, than health care.

[LOL]

Youre an idiot mark. If anything, smoking is more common in European countries. Diet and exercise are more important than genetics for life expectancy. Seriously? Genetics? So that's why life expectancy is low in African countries? You realize the overwhelming majority of America is very similar genetically to those European states listed.

America leads the way in obesity, diabetes, and excess sugar consumption. It has the most expensive health care in the world. But it is GENETICS that's the determining factor? What exactly do you base this on? Do you have any evidence to back this up? You realize that in 1776 we were very similar genetically to now right? Yet life expectancy was much much lower? Wonder why that is?

[LOL]

u guys are unserious. IF those european countries had capitalist health care systems, yall would be the first advocating them. The evidence can't be ignored.

Let's think about death/life expectancy:
http://www.allaboutmassagers.com/app/content/top_ten_causes_death
1. Heart Disease - 28.5%
2. Malignant Neoplasm (Cancer) - 22.8%
3. Cerebrovascular Diseases (Stroke) - 6.7%
4. Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease - 5.1%
5. Accidents (Unintentional) - 4.4%
6. Diabetes Melitus - 3.0%
7. Influenza/Pneumonia - 2.7%
8. Alzheimer's - 2.4%
9. Nephritis(Liver Disease) - 1.7%
10. Septicemia - 1.4%

hmmm... now think about cholera, influenza, tuberculosis, small pox, and tons of other 19th and early 20th century plagues. Yeah--health care has little to do with life expectancy my ass.

[Colin]

So...Bush inherited Medicare from Johnson, does that excuse Bush from any additions to the debt under his watch incurred by Medicare? Is FDR responsible for Social Security once it begins to deficits?

[mishu]

Switzerland - #7

Switzerland's health care system is private.

[mark l.]

lol-

the point being made about my families life expectancy is that you can select a subgroup, in my case family, based on genetics. Selecting a homogenous group and comparing result to a large heterogenous group is an effort in futility.

selecting a relatively similar group from one country, is not a fair comparison to make to an extraoidinarliy multicultrual usa, but even then the variance is a matter of 2-3 years.

[Rick Caird]

When LOL gets around to stopping laughing, he might want to consider the mortality statistics after getting sick. For example:

"Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher."

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/25/10-surprising-facts-about-american-health-care/

So, the longer death/life claims are nice, unless you happen to get sick.

Rick