The Problem With Republican Philosophy: Is It Just Stale?
John Cole proposes a question:
My question is: is there anything inherent in whatever conservatism is supposed to be that makes it less interested in reality? Anything in liberalism that makes it more interested in reality? Or is this all a historical accident? And is there a big political disadvantage to focusing on governing as opposed to pontificating?
He has some pretty spot-on observations about the differences between conservatives and liberals, mainly that conservatives are focused on philosophy and liberals are more focused on results and outcomes. He goes on to make this observation:
Honestly, though, I don’t see how it is possible for a movement to govern effectively with a focus on theory and fantasy. That’s not to say that conservatives can’t do a good job governing at the local level, where the issues are too concrete and boring to be dealt with by John Galt. But at the national level, I just don’t see how conservatives have a chance of being effective, given that their base, their media, and their intellectual infrastructure is more interested in rhetoric, “philosophy”, and fantasy than in any kind of policy specifics.
You see discussions like this almost daily on this blog. Conservatism in general seems to be more focused on individuals while liberalism is more focused on community. Actually, I think that would be a healthy balance if the discussions were actually balanced. Modern conservatism has turned into “this is what I’m afraid of” and “this is what I don’t like,” but doesn’t really have an answer for exceptions.
You could see this in the discussion of same sex marriage. The objections to same sex marriage from conservatives fall into two general categories: “it’s against my religion” and “I don’t like it because it’s different.” These objections don’t really conform to real life though, I mean, how do you handle the fact that some people are gay and that not everyone believes in the tenets of your religion? Their theoretical argument is basically “don’t be gay.” You see this same dynamic with abstinence-only eduction, there is nothing other than “don’t have sex” with no acknowledgment that people will have sex eventually (more than 95% pre-maritally), what then? The same thing happens with abortion – “don’t have one” does not cover all the possible real life situations that people face.
The Balloon Juice discussion was quite interesting.
Commenter WereBear:
I once heard it explained something like this:
Liberals believe that people are inherently good and society should be structured to maximize their opportunities towards goodness.
Conservatives believe that people are inherently bad and society should be structured to minimize their opportunities towards badness.
I still like it because it covers so much ground. Liberals like to come up with ways to get masses of people education, health care, food, and other basics so that they can contribute to society. Based on the fact that liberals think people want to contribute to society, if they have a chance.
While conservatives think that without laws and harsh punishments against each and every thing they don’t like, people will lie around and eat Cheetos all day.
Though I don’t know where they get that idea from…
(Durn this commenting system! Durn it to heck!)
I don’t actually believe Liberals believe that people are inherently good and society should be structured to maximize their opportunities towards goodness. I would probably describe my philosophy more as people are essentially fallible and we should accept that, so we should structure society to encourage the behavior we want and discourage behavior we don’t want. I don’t think we can legislate morality and I don’t think shame works very well. Take abortion as an example. I believe we prevent abortions by having comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education and increase access to birth control. But I also recognize there will be situations when abortion should be available, like in the cases of rape, incest and health of the mother.
This comment, by jrosen really made sense to me:
Xanthippas:
“Just off the top of my head, I’m not really sure why that is, though some historical research could probably answer that question.”
As someone who began on the then far-left (I am a Red Diaper baby, i. e. a child of old-left CPUSA’ers) and lived as an aware adult through the chaotic 60’s, I can suggest a few things.
The Old Left, both the Communists who idealized (and ideologued) the USSR —- my 95-year-old mother still does—- and Socialists who hated it, were guided by ideology, basically Marxist, however convoluted and the interpretations (and rationalizations) became. (Indeed, that many of their best thinkers and writers came from a Jewish background might account for the Talmudic complexity of the arguments that raged). But reality marginalized them at best, and really injured some of them—- my family went through the Mccarthy treatment when I was in my teens and although we came out OK, there are still some scars that throb when the political weather gets threatening. And then: the Secret Speech, the Hungarian and E. German uprisings (which did it for me), put serious doubts in play and, lo and behold, the most successful progressive movement of the century, the civil rights movement, came out of the Black Christian Churches, confounding some of the most deeply held ideological positions of the old Left.
Add to that the total ‘60s confusion of positions according to old schemes: the Vietnam War, which became the focus of so much anguish and desperation was escalated by Democrats (until Nixon). LBJ launched that war and the “War on Poverty” almost in the same breath, while supporting the civil rights movement with practical action (exploiting the death of JFK for the purpose!). JFK himself campaigned as an anti-Communist Cold warrior and initiated the Test-Ban Treaty, and seemed to be moving left when he was gunned down, by a self-styled man of the Left (yes, I do think, after decades of consideration, that Oswald was a lone gunman). I watched some old friends move from the traditional right (Ike-like) into SDS when it was mildly progressive and then farther and farther left into the insanity that ended with Kent State and the “Days of Rage” (I helped to start at least one of Weathermen on his trajectory. And some of the internecine bickering of the New Left was almost a caricature of the polemics that raged in the ‘30s, as if the radicals were trying to re-enact the whole experience, complete with pathetical calls for armed revolution—- Trotsky at the Smolny Institute was a favorite trope—- while the ones who used clubs were hard-hatted men of the working class, on them!)
Surveying this fiasco from a distance, it seems clear that an ideology that was born in a very different time and place was inappropriate (that’s polite!) to the problems of our day.And it is easy to see how the best of intentions can result in the worst of outcomes when human beings try to coerce reality—- here the Orwell text is “Animal Farm”—- into an ideologically predetermined cast. Thus caution, pragmatism, incrementalism seem better suited to deal with real difficulties then grand prescriptions.Today’s Right might take note, if they cared about reality at all. But it’s a lot more fun to hold extreme positions when you know somehow that there isn’t a chance they will ever be realized. Until the nuts start shooting, of course.
This makes a lot of sense. The 60s was the end of the New Deal/progressive era and the rise of the new conservative era. Did years out of power make the Republicans into the party of ideas while Democrats collapsed under the weight of their own ideology? I’m not sure but it does feel to me like we’re in a bit of the reverse of the 60s. In the 60s it was the far-left extremists that were more dangerous and violent and their activity tainted the rest of the movement. I know that years out of power did make liberals hungry for change and conservative mis-administration made the rest the country eager to give liberals a chance.
Tags: Meta
“My question is: is there anything inherent in whatever conservatism is supposed to be that makes it less interested in reality? Anything in liberalism that makes it more interested in reality?”
Good to know going in that he’s coming from a biased, unrealistic position.
Don’t think I can do this now, but I’ll be around later after I do another unbiased, reality-based interview with another local Democratic officeholder. (If you missed the first one, it can be found here and here.)
Everyone please read coastalsussex.com
…incase you missed the subtle plug.
The writer, John Cole, was a former Bush-voting conservative. So, I think he’s uniquely qualified to talk about the difference that he sees.
I notice that FSP didn’t answer the question. Is Republican ideology from the Reagan era and does it address today’s problems?
I believe Cole was an ardent Bu$hCo supporter and Republican until the Grand Clusterfuck and the burgeoning stooopid, FSP.
To me, conservatism is personified by Kevin Bacon’s character in Animal House….trying to stop the rushing crowd by standing in front, waiving his arms, and screaming “ALL IS WELL!!!”
The result, predictably, was Bacon stampeded into the ground by the forward-moving public.
VC,
This is not a bacon thread.
“Honestly, though, I don’t see how it is possible for a movement to govern effectively with a focus on theory and fantasy.”
Liberal socialism isn’t theoretical? Equal outcomes isn’t fantasy?
“…at the national level, I just don’t see how conservatives have a chance of being effective, given that their base, their media, and their intellectual infrastructure is more interested in rhetoric, “philosophy”, and fantasy…”
First of all, the majority of today’s Republicans aren’t conservative….and that’s part of the problem. True conservatives, like Reagan, have fixed core beliefs. True conservatism is still legitimate- today’s ‘conservative’ leaders aren’t.
Contrary to popular opinion, Obama’s election didn’t change politics as we know it (as we may see in the ’10 Congressional elections). It is merely a contemporary example of what has been and will always be….the fact that politics is cyclical.
Yes, I agree politics is cyclical. The Republicans had their chance and they screwed up royally. Now Democrats will have their chance. That doesn’t change the fact that Reagan-worship is not a cure for today’s ills. We’re no longer in the cold war and there’s not much interest right now in how unfair taxes are to the rich.
I was thinking about Bacon….it’s the morning, hey!
And rick….you are what you are.
“Everyone please read coastalsussex.com
…incase you missed the subtle plug.”
I know. I went all Protack on you. Had to do it. Have to make a little money to afford my Kowalkian tax hike so the state doesn’t have to make any significant cuts.
“I notice that FSP didn’t answer the question. Is Republican ideology from the Reagan era and does it address today’s problems?”
I will. I’m out the door now, though. I actually am looking forward to it.
First of all, the majority of today’s Republicans aren’t conservative….and that’s part of the problem. True conservatives, like Reagan, have fixed core beliefs.
And here you’ve located part of the stale. Idolizing Reagan even though he certainly did not govern in accordance with most of the “fixed core beliefs” that conservatives like to talk about but can’t get anyone to buy into. He was responsible for the first round of amnesty for illegal immigrants, tax hikes of all kinds and massive deficit spending. Support for any of these things gets you thrown under the bus in the contemporary Repub party.
One of the things that I don’t think has yet sunk in is how visible the gap between what they say (the talking points) and what they do. There’s just more consensus that there’s no there there.
Yes, Reagan is very different that today’s Republicans. He was optimistic and he was pragmatic in some ways.
More to the point, unwavering core beliefs might be nice for your Ayn Rand Fan Club meetings, but they’re not what I’m looking for in politics. I’m looking for people who base their ideas on good ideas that have worked already, not the fantasies conservatives love to dwell upon.
Reagan was the ultimate used car salesman -master of the bait-and-switch.
He perfected the “emotion over reason” approach that led to a mass defection of liberal voters….that and shitty candidates from the Left certainly didn’t help.
. . . that and shitty candidates from the Left certainly didn’t help.
VC, too painfully true. I hereby take a vow to never support another presidential candidate from Massachusetts! And, of course, Texas.
Oh, I had to get out of bed. It’s quarterly tax payment day. Tra-la-la-la. I’m on my way to the post office to pay my American and Delaware Dues. Just makes ya proud to pay your fair share.
An aside: Had Dukakis (sp?) picked Jesse Jackson it would have been a different race.
Jackson had a great primary season and finished a strong second. That ticket would have been kick-ass.
“And rick….you are what you are.”
Thanks, VC….sure beats the usual ‘asinine’ or ‘idiot’ moniker.
” the differences between conservatives and liberals, mainly that conservatives are focused on philosophy and liberals are more focused on results and outcomes.”
Here are some liberal outcomes and results.
Unfunded Social Security Liability-$15 Trillion
Unfunded Medicare Liability–$74 Trillion
Annual Government Deficit- $$1.8 trillion
Current unemployment- 9.4%
Growth in Federal Education $$-40% in 8 years
Number of Government Czars-22
It is a joke to have to liberals adjudicate conservative actions, ideals and thoughts. Liberals who now think of Reagan as better than current Republicans are liars. Reagan was hated by the press and liberals yet embraced by voters.
Keep fishing for substance but liberalism is all about emotion and nothing about substance. If it was there would not be a single poor person in this country.
Mike Protack
Mike,
History has adjudicated conservative actions and policies.
You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting bro. Get over it.
Mr. Shallow Bench would be the poster boy for Stale, I’m thinking.
Nice to see the plumbing still works. Yep, here it comes, another load of shit from Mike Protack.
A load of crap that doesn’t address the substance of the question. I guess Republicans are accepting the premise.
They are the party of no – no ideas.
Of course it doesn’t. He’s practicing the repeat-the-meme mantra they all learned from Atwater. Repeat it long enough and a certain percentage of people will believe it. He’s not interested in furthering the discussion at all.
I’m wondering why, other than the comic relief, y’all don’t just ban his IP address.
I think he has too many routers to ban his IP.
Okay. I have a few minutes.
Yes. Conservatism is stale. Harkening back to Ronald Reagan will get us nowhere today.
We need to apply conservative principles to a new era. We need to be in the Latino and African-American communities talking about school choice, entrepreneurship and microfinance.
Instead of this incessant focus on defining families, we need to help families succeed.
We need to give a s**t about what goes into the air and water. We need to realize that big corporations are creating an un-free market by virtue of their power and influence, and are every bit as bad as any other government leech. We need to be the party of small and midsize businesses and the family farm.
And we need an undying commitment to demanding a lean, effective government that helps people help themselves and promotes personal liberty and personal initiative at every possible opportunity.
Good thing Protack is in charge of the PR for the Delaware Republicans.
I just ran FSP’s nice sounding words through my bullshit to English translator.
It seems my bullshit to English translator is a bit jaded by Republican past wrong doings.
I didn’t realize my honest opinion was unwelcome here. Sorry.
Just providing a context to your honest opinion. Mr. touchy.
The question is who’s more hostile to your opinion, the Dems here or Mike Protack.
Well, considering that Loserboy rattled off a bunch of outcomes, almost all of which self-styled conservatives had a big hand in causing, even someone who doesn’t know his history can surmise that he’s not worth listening to.
I’m glad you said that and not me. I was sure thinking it.
I think FSP is sincere in what he writes.
I also think that he doesn’t want to recognize or admit that an “effective government that helps people help themselves and promotes personal liberty and personal initiative at every possible opportunity” costs money.
The fact that he publishes David A on his blog demonstrates a fundamental disconnect between so-called “conservatism” and fundamental American values.
“I also think that he doesn’t want to recognize or admit that an “effective government that helps people help themselves and promotes personal liberty and personal initiative at every possible opportunity” costs money.”
It does cost money. It just doesn’t cost the kind of money we spend now.
I do value your honest opinion, FSP. (I hope that doesn’t get me in trouble with the boss.)
FSP’s initiatives should result in a vibrant two party system again, without which the Dems will mess up again!
Problem is, current Repubs are not in a mood to listen, as evidenced on this very blog.
I know, Perry. They prefer to believe that we’re all just really stupid and don’t know what we’re talking about. I think it’s going to take another whipping in 2010 before the GOP as a whole starts to re-think things.
I find it unbelievable that anybody who calls themselves “liberal” wants to see the resurrection of the repub party just so we can have a 2 party system. We’ve had Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II – all have been corrupt party-before-country Presidents. And you want another one???!
We need a 4 or 5 party system, not this 2 party repub-dem rehash again and again and again. The dems are only slightly better than the repubs, but not by much.
And hopefully we’ll have a true liberal like Feingold primary Obama is 2012.
I don’t think we can wish away conservatives. There are always going to be some, and they deserve a voice as well. I would rather have a party that is committed to governance instead of whatever it is they are committed to. I certainly don’t want the Democratic party to start implementing purity tests like Republicans do. Yes, I would certainly like the Democratic party to be more progressive, but we’re going to have a hard time of that as long as we keep picking up Republicans.
“effective government that helps people help themselves and promotes personal liberty and personal initiative at every possible opportunity”
This also doesn’t mean all that much. And in many ways is a stalking horse for the same played out BS. Sort of like the old small government BS.
Agreed, Cassandra. They have a long way to go. That means new, specific proposals for real world problems and not the same old stuff in a prettier package.
I don’t wish away all conservatives. I would just like to see a mix of left-, far left-, and right-leaning parties.
But I see your point, UI, about the repub party being like fly paper, trapping conservatives to keep them out of the dems.
“This also doesn’t mean all that much.”
And that’s why we have the government we do.
No. What Cassandra said was that your words were generic conservative flibble flabble. How would you do any of that stuff?
Cut taxes, I’ll bet.
A1, you have a point that I haven’t given much thought to, but right now we have a one party government, hardly a healthy situation.
My point remains, that we need debate, which we are not now getting from the Repubs. We are, however, getting some within the Dem party, on health care for example, which may have some similarity to a multi-party system as you describe.
Traditionally, third parties in our system do not thrive, so I think your idea is a pipe dream.
A Repub party representing ideas just expressed by FSP would be an asset to our political debates, in my view.
Even a parliamentary system ends up as two coalitions. I think our system is a little more stable (look at Italy’s for example), but one could also argue it’s a good thing to be able to turn over the leadership easier.
I think Perry’s right that we’ve just stuffed the smaller parties into one of the big 2. I would certainly like to see the Progressive Caucus in Congress flex as much muscle as the Blue Dogs.
I also agree with Perry that we need conservatives who are committed to governing.
An additional major problem is the infusion into government of special interest money, dominated by corporations.
The current WH is independent of this powerful influence, but Congress of course is infiltrated, both parties, so here is where we Dems do need Feingold.
I’d like to see Obama push Feingold to become Senate leader, replacing Reid who is close to worthless.
“No. What Cassandra said was that your words were generic conservative flibble flabble. How would you do any of that stuff?”
It’s a guiding philosophy. Another example of a guiding philosophy is the “use it or lose it” mantra currently operating in our state government that says if your department or division doesn’t use all of your allocated budget, you won’t be able to ask for more the next year. So, instead of working hard to save money, the state wastes and wastes and wastes.
I’ll try to break it down for you. Naturally, you’re opposed to a lot of it, and you’ll try to joke and demean it.
“effective government”
This means that the government should be able to at any time document the success of each and every program under a fully transparent system.
“that helps people help themselves”
This means things like job training instead of welfare payments, or anything else where the government chooses short-term investments aimed at improving the ability of people in need to care for themselves instead of permanent dependence on the government for subsistence.
“and promotes personal liberty and personal initiative at every possible opportunity”
This is again a philosophy that should be injected into any decision. For instance, health care. Does having a government-run health care plan increase the incentive for people to care for themselves, or does it decrease that incentive? School choice increases both liberty (the freedom to choose) and initiative (incentivizes parents to choose a better option for their children), whereas doubling down on a flawed government-monopoly education system does not.
“The current WH is independent of this powerful influence, ….”
Stated in haste, thinking only of Obama. I wonder about Geithner/Summers, just where their loyalties lie.
and promotes personal liberty and personal initiative at every possible opportunity”
This is again a philosophy that should be injected into any decision
This should also mean…pro-choice – not interfering in the decisions between a woman, her family and her physicians
As well as, pro-marriage equity
So, why doesn’t Republican ideology incorporate these two things?
Dave, while I like much of what you say, keep in mind that you are addressing hoped for outcomes and ignoring unintended consequences.
One example is this: “School choice increases both liberty (the freedom to choose) and initiative (incentivizes parents to choose a better option for their children), whereas doubling down on a flawed government-monopoly education system does not.”
One unintended consequence is the weakening of the public schools, because left with the calibre of students that remain, there is no way they can compete with charters and privates, no matter what they do. So the result is back to school segregation, by class and by race.
I have spoken many times that there are models for public school successes out there, but we in DE ignore them in order to go down the segregation road. To me, that makes no sense.
At least this statement of yours provides the start of a much ignored, much needed debate. Where’s Kilroy when I need him???
“One unintended consequence is the weakening of the public schools, because left with the calibre of students that remain, there is no way they can compete with charters and privates, no matter what they do. So the result is back to school segregation, by class and by race.”
I don’t agree that your outcome is a necessary outcome. If there is a segregation, it will be into two categories: children of parents who care and children of parents who don’t. How long should we hold back the former because of the latter?
The children of the parents who don’t then need extra school services, not segregation.
I don’t like vouchers as well. For one, it’s the saving of one child at a time, which is a pretty inefficient way to do it. It’s another transfer of public money to private institutions. If we want to fix schools, we need to fix schools for everyone. Also, studies have shown that when normalized for the same type of student, private schools do not perform better than public schools. Private schools only look better because they don’t have to accept the children with learning and behavioral difficulties.
“The children of the parents who don’t then need extra school services, not segregation.”
That argument has been used to drive the cost of education up thousands of dollars per student since the mid-1970’s, with no correlating increase in achievement.
No one thinks that we should cast aside any child because their parents don’t care. But in order to compete globally, we have to get the most out of our best students, and we have to push them to achieve.
Unfortunately, any teacher will tell you that they need the achievers in their classroom to raise the level of the rest of the class. You can’t have both. You have to choose. What do you do with the achievers?
For one, it’s the saving of one child at a time, which is a pretty inefficient way to do it.
This is exactly right. And you know how unserious someone is about education when they are willing to fund this kind of inefficiency.
children of parents who care and children of parents who don’t. How long should we hold back the former because of the latter?
This isn’t an argument for liberty or equality or personal initiative. This is a roundabout way to get to the people we admire (and are happy to serve) vs. people we condemn (who we will take taxes from but will kick to the curb at every opportunity).
“Private schools only look better because they don’t have to accept the children with learning and behavioral difficulties.”
And, privates are not encumbered with the DSTP, meaning that teachers can focus more on critical thinking skills and special projects, instead of rote memory of often disconnected and/or facts with inadequate foundations.
For example, when the VA standard tests (SOL’s) were imposed in the early ’90’s, it became more difficult to have good student participation in the Science Fair.
Should say: …of often disconnected facts and/or facts with inadequate foundations.
Does having a government-run health care plan increase the incentive for people to care for themselves, or does it decrease that incentive?
So using this thinking, everyone who has employer paid insurance is in the not caring for themselves category?
Insurance is not a caring for yourself calculation. To do so completely denies the entire purpose for insurance. Giving people an opportunity at a public option means giving plenty of folks the freedom to not be tied to jobs just becuaase they can’t afford to be without insurance. Whether you are a mom or dad who needs to get out of the work pool to care for a very sick child or very sick parent; whether you are someone whose job prospects would be alot better if you could stand down from work (at least full time) to get more degrees or better training; or if you are somebody with a serious skill who can do something without a corporation if you didn’t have to rely on the insurance.
improving the ability of people in need to care for themselves instead of permanent dependence on the government for subsistence.
Which are very nice words, but this is not an effort that the GOP is going to get anywhere near. But I for one will be delighted if this means that farmers and every other business on the planet is cutoff from their subsidies and tax credits and other revenue transfer schemes.
“That argument has been used to drive the cost of education up thousands of dollars per student since the mid-1970’s, with no correlating increase in achievement.”
I don’t think you can substantiate this claim.
Cassandra has it right about the attitude that throws some children “to the curb at every opportunity”.
Good students in a public school can be offered more advanced courses, like AP or IB at the secondary level.
It is a mistake to separate students in their formative years into “gated” schools, a sure start for some of them on a path to social elitism, in my view.
Of course I assume that disciplinary methods must be in place in any public school to ensure safety and order. Moreover, alternative schools must be available to handle the intractable few, many of whom can be turned around with appropriate attention.
Of course it may be somewhat expensive. I cannot think of many more worthwhile investments for a viable, concerned society to make for the future.
teachers can focus more on critical thinking skills and special projects
You have to remember that not all private schools are quality schools. I grew up in Kentucky, where there were lots of tiny, unaccredited religious schools with poor quality teaching.
I call what we’re talking about the “universal” problem. For something to be truly universal (covering everyone) that means that the government must step in because the private sector can’t make money on the most difficult 10% of cases. It takes a lot of effort to deal with neglected and disabled kids and most private schools can’t or won’t deal with them. I hear FSP arguing that we should forget about them because of their parents. That’s pretty darn heartless.
“But I for one will be delighted if this means that farmers and every other business on the planet is cutoff from their subsidies and tax credits and other revenue transfer schemes.”
So would I.
“I hear FSP arguing that we should forget about them because of their parents. That’s pretty darn heartless.”
Then you’re hearing what you want to hear.
Cassandra: “Insurance is not a caring for yourself calculation. ….”
Excellent point, which, aside from starting on the road to a healthier population with a reform of how we approach health care, there are these very important economic issues associated with it that the NO, NO, NO side either has never considered or ignores.
“So using this thinking, everyone who has employer paid insurance is in the not caring for themselves category?”
See, you think it’s an either-or thing. I think we can do away with employer-sponsored care without a public option that will complete on a field that is hardly level. I’m perfectly happy to discuss Conrad’s proposal for publicly-chartered, member-run health-care cooperatives.
Fact is, costs aren’t coming down until you give people ownership over their care where they can compare prices at one doctor vs another or one hospital vs. another. Everything else is just shifting the cost from group to group.
A public option will eventually become the only option, and we’ll be giving free care to people at 600, 700, 800% of poverty. That’s a bad outcome.
“This isn’t an argument for liberty or equality or personal initiative. This is a roundabout way to get to the people we admire (and are happy to serve) vs. people we condemn (who we will take taxes from but will kick to the curb at every opportunity).”
That’s not an argument about personal initiative? Giving high-achievers the freedom to go as high as they can go instead of being used to bring up the low-achievers? We need to push students to the height of their ability, regardless of their ability. We need to not sentence low achievers to a life of low achievement.
And maybe you want to take taxes from people and kick them to the curb, but I don’t see that happening now. I see a lot of excuses made, but I don’t see people being kicked to the curb.
And I noticed while looking through all the criticism that no one answered my question:
You can’t have both. You have to choose. What do you do with the achievers? Do you leave them in the classroom to help raise the level of the low achievers or do you challenge them to reach their potential?
Gay issues:
How I think the whole gay marriage thing should be resolved. I feel that it should be on a state by state basis. The only federal policy should be one hospital rights and income taxes. Most issues are in state control. Insurance of all kinds, state tax benefits, loans, banking, and anything else you can think of.
If a federal bill stated that all states were to uphold hospital rights if gay marriage/civil union were legal in their home state, it would solve a lot of problems.
Liberal/Conservative and Good and Bad people:
This one really bothers me. I hate how meanings of words change as time goes on without coming up with one to replace the old meaning.
Liberal used to mean a larger stronger centralized government, weaker local government.
Conservative meant smaller centralized government, stronger local government.
The whole people are bad, restrict everything isn’t religious conservative, it’s just religious.
Let a state ban abortions if their majority wants it. Then people can drive an hour or so to the state next door to get it done. People do this for sales tax evasion, fireworks, liquor, and other things.
The republican party of today = the suck. They are too preoccupied with god this, moral that. If they had stuck to their original ideals instead of identifing with the bible thumpers we would all be better off. (BTW, i am not anti gor or religious. I myself am religious, i just don’t feel i should push my beliefs on anyone else.)
School choice is the best option we have so far. It should be pretty apparent how bad busing failed. If we were serious about changing schools, we would adopt simple measure, like uniforms, or later school starts. Studies have shown that starting school an hour later resulted in better grades.
what we need is more common sense.
you think it’s an either-or thing
No actually — you were the one framing this in the taking care of yourself vs not taking care of yourself. I’ve no doubt that you would be delighted with the coop plan. Because it won’t do the one thing that is vital — help move down costs of the system.
Costs come down when insurance companies have better incentives to address their own costs. Medicare — which its users by and large like — has an overhead cost of below 5% and private insurance between 25 and 40%. That is 25 -40% of every dollar you send to them in premiums is not spent on your health care. And that is the low hanging fruit if they are made to compete.
A public option will eventually become the only option
Which presumes that these companies will never be able to compete. I think that they will learn to compete.
I thought I answered your questions with this, Dave: “Good students in a public school can be offered more advanced courses, like AP or IB at the secondary level. “
These good students would still be together with the rest of their peers in some mainstream classes, eat lunch together, and participate in sports and other extracurricular activities like musicals, plays, community service, clubs, ….
What about all of the earlier years when they are bing held back until they can get to high school? The problem here is that everyone can’t be a shooting star to greatness. Sorry, but someone is gonna have to dig ditches, or be a janitor. The opertunity is already there, some kids and their parents just can’t or won’t do the work.
LOL, I was going to say the same thing, Perry. Some students with behavioral and/or learning issues need more intensive training outside a classroom setting. Mainstreaming these students benefit them as well, as much as possible. And it’s true, what Perry said, some of these students can be taught and learn to be a productive member of society.
AP and gifted classes was how it was done when I was in school. I went to public schools my whole time in school, from elementary to graduate school.
Liberalism is about making sure that everyone gets a fair shot to achieve. I think we have the best society when everyone can participate.
“a sure start for some of them on a path to social elitism, in my view.”
So what? How is it any of your business if people want to raise their kids to be social elitists?
“Of course I assume that disciplinary methods must be in place in any public school to ensure safety and order.”
Then you haven’t spent much time in public schools at the middle-school level and above over the past 30 years.
” Moreover, alternative schools must be available to handle the intractable few, many of whom can be turned around with appropriate attention.”
No, they can’t, and they’re not all that few. The fact is that half of all children are of below-average capabilities, and we’re doing nothing more than baby-sitting them. You liberals can talk and talk all day and it won’t change the facts on the ground. Where do you liberals come up with this lunacy?
“Fact is, [health care] costs aren’t coming down until you give people ownership over their care where they can compare prices at one doctor vs another or one hospital vs. another. Everything else is just shifting the cost from group to group.”
There’s that stupid argument again. Yes, if I”m having a cancerous lung removed, I certainly want to engage in a lot of shopping around for the cheapest deal.
Most health-care spending has nothing whatsoever to do with this. You’re invoking a mindset that MIGHT come into play on elective surgery. For everything else, nobody wants to shop around — they want the problem solved ASAP.
And as long as you’re talking about “shifting costs from group to group,” you’ve just given a marvelous definition of what insurance companies do — except you left out the part where they take about 35% off the top to pay executives, stockholders, advertising and the like.
If you’re going to be rational, you should try looking at your philosophy’s sacred cows.
Where do you conservatives come up with this idiocy?
“Yes, if I”m having a cancerous lung removed, I certainly want to engage in a lot of shopping around for the cheapest deal.”
You do if you’re paying for it. Now, in an emergency, you’re not shopping around. I get that.
“And as long as you’re talking about “shifting costs from group to group,” you’ve just given a marvelous definition of what insurance companies do — except you left out the part where they take about 35% off the top to pay executives, stockholders, advertising and the like.”
How many times do I have to say it? Insurance companies are just as bad as government run health care. Until the consumer owns the decision-making and until the consumer, not the government, not the insurance bureaucracy, is the actual customer, no improvement will come of it.
And your 35% skimmed off the top by profiteers in the private sector becomes 35% of flat-out waste in the public sector.
“A public option will eventually become the only option.”
Not necessarily at all! This is the Repub talking point!! It depends on how the public option is configured, that is what it covers, and what it costs.
I’m thinking that it should provide basic health care coverage with a deductible and a copay, and for catastrophic care with a high deductible.
This is exactly what I now have with Medicare and my Medicare Supplement, and an Rx plan, as a total premium of about $2.4k per year.
The requirement should be for the public plan to be revenue neutral, and for health insurance to be mandatory for everyone, no rejections for preexisting conditions, and with some assistance on premiums for lower income families.
Since Conservatives claim that private enterprise is more efficient than the government, right, then they should be able to compete, either in basic insurance coverage and/or by offering supplementary packages like they now do with Medicare, correct?
Any Conservative who thinks otherwise is in violation of their own stated ideology.
“And it’s true, what Perry said, some of these students can be taught and learn to be a productive member of society.”
No. All of these students should be expected to be productive members of society and held accountable if they’re not.
Mainstreaming is fine, with other mainstream kids. But sometimes you can’t fit them all into the cookiecutter. There has to be a line.
I went to public school as well. The “gifted class” was called quest. It was only once a week, and the rest of the time i was bored stiff. This doesn’t fix anything. Its like trying to cure a bullet wound with a band-aid.
Everyone can participate, its call democracy. Its just tha you have some people that don’t want to participate. Also, FYI, being forced to do something, or join a program isn’t the same as participating.
“Not necessarily at all! This is the Repub talking point!! It depends on how the public option is configured, that is what it covers, and what it costs.”
A public option, subsidized with taxpayer money will be on an uneven playing field to begin with. In addition, employers will simply drop coverage if there is a public option. Add onto that the idea of taxing benefits (talk about hurting the weak and the middle class), and you have a triple whammy that gives private care no shot at competing.
I don’t think there should be any health insurance for preventative care. Lets be honest, most people only go to the doctors when they are sick. The way it used to be, you went to the doctors, paid $50 or so dollars, and you were on your way. Health insurance was for catastrophic care. The HMO system is what did in the health care system.
What’s wrong with paying $100 for a sick visit now and again, if you save $50 dollars or more a week in insurance premiums?
Our government doesn’t want to see this come about. In NY, there was a doctor that offered flat rare care. It covered unlimited preventive visits and onsite medical services such as minor surgery, physical therapy, lab work and gynecological care. NY Department of insurance shut him down, unless he charged his patients an extra $33 for every sick visit.
“Then you haven’t spent much time in public schools at the middle-school level and above over the past 30 years.”
Wrong, Geezer!
On the other hand, I take it that you have taught HS and MS, correct?
Not that you have to have, but your comments suggest that you have not, and that you are not really in touch except perhaps anecdotally.
Several of us on here, instigated by FSP’s comment on schools (#47), are talking about what can be done, some of which has been done in the past, to improve our public schools, other than retreating segregation, i.e., to charters and privates.
“A public option, subsidized with taxpayer money will be on an uneven playing field to begin with.”
Not necessarily, especially if it pays for itself by the income from premiums.
I also don’t see employers necessarily dropping coverage, as they can still include coverage as part of their total compensation plan. What employee would take the public option if his employer provides his coverage?
Even if benefits are taxed, the employee may still be better off with the employer coverage.
We are debating the merits/demerits of a public plan that has yet to be fully defined. Wait another month or so.
Phil, you are not in tune with this conversation on schools.
No one is talking about forcing anything on anybody.
AP and IB offerings are not the same as the quest you mentioned. These courses are full week, full credit courses, offered to well performing students, and sometimes to poorer performing students with potential. These students would continue with their mainstream courses in other subjects.
“I also don’t see employers necessarily dropping coverage, as they can still include coverage as part of their total compensation plan. What employee would take the public option if his employer provides his coverage?”
What employer would offer coverage if their employees can get it from the government? Especially if they have to pay extra taxes to offer it?
Phil, primary care physicians do not charge $100 anymore; it’s at least $150, and a specialist charges more, maybe $200.
Then there are lab tests, for another $200-500, and prescriptions, then another visit for a check-up.
So you’re up to at least $1000 or more for each event.
People have to have insurance, not only for this, but for the removal of a lung like Geezer just talked about, and worse.
The old days are long gone, Phil!
“What employer would offer coverage if their employees can get it from the government? Especially if they have to pay extra taxes to offer it?”
They would offer coverage as an enticement for a prospective employee. Then said employee would not have to pay health care premiums at all. Why would he/she then want the government insurance?
The taxes would be paid by the employee, not the employer, as the premium paid by the employer would be treated as income by the IRS. The employee still has a savings compared to the government insurance premium cost.
“The taxes would be paid by the employee, not the employer, as the premium paid by the employer would be treated as income by the IRS.”
Is that how Medicare works? No. The employer pays matching taxes, just like they would in this scheme. If not right away, then eventually.
Why would I, as an employer, pay $5,000 to $10,000 a year to insure an employee when I could give them that money (or slightly less) in cash for them to insure themselves? Insurance is a costly bureaucratic nightmare for small business.
Dave, if the employer provided health insurance premium is taxed, it would be on the employee as income. The are discussing taxing only that portion of the employer paid premium in excess of about $17k per family.
Medicare has nothing to do with any employer. You are thinking of FICA. The individual over 65 is charged a premium, which is deducted from the Social Security payment.
If you, as the employer, pay $5k to $10k in cash directly to your employee, that entire amount would be an income tax. In addition, the employee would have to find his own health insurance, and pay the premium with after tax dollars. This makes no sense whatsoever!
“Medicare has nothing to do with any employer. You are thinking of FICA.”
Anybody else want to take this one before I do?
FICA funds SS and Medicare — you and your employer split the costs, but you bear all of those costs if self-employed.
Why would I, as an employer, pay $5,000 to $10,000 a year to insure an employee when I could give them that money (or slightly less) in cash for them to insure themselves?
There are alot that would. And if there uis a public option that forces health care plans into a better competitive position, those employees may have a real choice in something that may work for the dollars paid in.
I guess you didn’t read the post about the doctor in NYC that charged a flat rate for unlimited preventive visits and onsite medical services such as minor surgery, physical therapy, lab work and gynecological care…….
About the schools, weren’t you against (or someone was) school of choice? Also, by not allowing some gifted or above normal students special education, isn’t that ‘forcing’ them to a lower bracket?
I know that AP and IB are full courses…..What my post above was saying that there isn’t enough before highschool. You are stuck underachieving for 8 years, while only recieving a good education for 4 years.
But other than that, how about my gay rights solution in #68?
wingnut rhetoric?
I had gifted classes all throughout school, even in elementary school. I think it is important to keep students engaged.
The problem with negotiating with doctors is they don’t have flat rates. If there’s a doctor in NYC doing it, good for him but it is not the norm. I’ve know people who’ve tried to do this and failed. It’s not like going to 2 or 3 stores and finding the best bargain. Doctor’s offices don’t have a price list. In fact, most doctors have different rates depending on which insurance you have. Our fragmented insurance system has led to this non-transparency.
As far as state by state, that’s happening now. The thing that bothers me is that LGBT should already have equal rights, guaranteed by our Constitution. Plus, marriage equity will have to be addressed at a federal level because of federal benefits (like joint filing status) and because the federal government passed DOMA. So, Congress has already meddled in marriage and is basically saying it won’t recognize marriage in states where it is legal. That’s wrong.
“And your 35% skimmed off the top by profiteers in the private sector becomes 35% of flat-out waste in the public sector.”
You have nothing to support that but your anti-government prejudice.
As for shopping around for the price on having my cancerous lung removed, you still don’t get it — most people can’t sock away the required hundreds of thousands of dollars. And, since I’m probably not going to live all that long even after the operation, I really don’t give a crap whether Doctor A does it for $50,000 or Doctor B does it for $45,000, since I can’t afford either option.
In other words, the Republican approach treats health care as if it’s something still provided by small-town doctors and as if it’s a good or service like any other. Neither is remotely the case.
The bulk of health-care spending goes down the drain in the last weeks and months of life, and the “shopping” for the services is done not by the soon-to-be-dead but by relatives. The sums involved are astronomical. It will not yield to normal economic modeling, no matter how much you and the guys at the Cato Institute would like it to.
Right on Geezer! It’s impossible to shop a lot of this stuff around and the current system we have now for uninsured and underinsured does not pay for preventive care. It’s pretty much just pray you don’t get sick because $150-$200 a visit is just out of reach for most people.
What I find funny about the debate on healthcare is how much the opposition accepts the premise of the reform advocates. They know that a public option will be cheaper than private insurance. They accept that 35-40% of what we’re paying now is non-value adding to our health. My job as a health care consumer is not to make profits for companies. I want the best care for the best money.
“You have nothing to support that but your anti-government prejudice.”
Read the paper lately?
I’ve read the paper. I’ve been reading alot about how big business has been screwing us for years and doesn’t know what it’s doing.
“The bulk of health-care spending goes down the drain in the last weeks and months of life,”
Thank God the government will now be able to just deny service and we can just shorten those last few weeks of life. Whew!
“They know that a public option will be cheaper than private insurance.”
Only if the public option is subsidized by tax dollars. If it is left to compete on its own, it won’t.
“It’s impossible to shop a lot of this stuff around and the current system we have now for uninsured and underinsured does not pay for preventive care.”
You guys are purposely missing the point. You get catastrophic insurance for emergencies and you shop around for regular care. Look at LASIK or Plastic Surgery or any other optional care that insurance doesn’t cover. They have all plummeted in price as people have had to compete. Undoubtedly you’ve seen a LASIK ad in the paper. There are hundreds of stops on the health care train that could be subject to the same effect. You’re not going to derive savings from the entire system, but that’s the only way you’re going to bring costs down.
How would a public option bring down the cost of Geezer’s new lung?
“I’ve read the paper. I’ve been reading alot about how big business has been screwing us for years and doesn’t know what it’s doing.”
That’s not what the comment was about. The comment claimed that I have no basis for a claim that the government wastes money and I have state checks, credit cards, Lonnie George and a DoE full of 100K earners that says it does.
If you want to talk about big business, refer to comment 24.
The public option brings down costs because we’re not paying for profits. It also brings down price because the government is able to negotiate.
Face it, the private insurance companies can’t compete because they’re inefficient with huge overhead costs that are non-value adding.
“Thank God the government will now be able to just deny service and we can just shorten those last few weeks of life. Whew!”
You joke, but if you were truly interested in bringing down health care costs you wouldn’t. That’s where the expense is, big guy, and all your bluster plus any you can borrow won’t change it. Get back to me after your mom is kept “alive” on a respirator for seven months because the Catholic hospital she was taken to by ambulance wouldn’t pull the plug. In fact, I defy anyone to pull the plug on his own mother.
You keep pretending this is a good or service like any other, and it’s obviously not. So either get real or STFU.
“The comment claimed that I have no basis for a claim that the government wastes money and I have state checks, credit cards, Lonnie George and a DoE full of 100K earners that says it does.”
And I call bullshit. There’s nothing in that article about 35% waste, or even health care. Not to mention that the national government is not run by a bunch of otherwise-unemployable Delawareans. Again, either drop the conservative boilerplate BS or get out of the discussion.
As for shopping around for the price on having my cancerous lung removed, you still don’t get it
Even shopping around for a price to get your lung removed would be expensive. No doctor worth having will give you a price — especially for something this complex and of this level of risk — without examinations and tests. Their own. They won’t just use someone else’s data without groundtruthing some of it. Which puts you in the business of paying to get your so-called competitive bids.
They simply do not understand this field. They keep trying to apply Econ 101 principles to something that has never been that simple and keeps getting more complicated.
FSP might want to brush it off, but the truth remains that most health-care spending is incurred during the last few weeks/months of life. The problem is you’re not sure they’re the last weeks of life until that life ends. There are no other options for lowering this than denying treatment. The alternative is not denying treatment and incurring large costs. Until they come up with a way of dealing with that, costs will not go down, no matter what their Magic Market Fairy told them.