Ben Smith says that he was dubious about the Obama team’s charm offensive with American Jews. After all, how could they be so foolish as to take puffery seriously and be wowed by a lunch with Elie Wiesel? Aren’t Jews, you know, supposed to be smarter than that? After all, the underlying policy hasn’t changed one iota. And in fact the administration is flaunting its anti-Israel connections.
Smith also picks up this tidbit:
Kim Kardashian and Justin Bieber drew the camera flashes at the White House Correspondents dinner, but foreign policy geeks took closer note of the TPM table, where National Security Council Chief of Staff Denis McDonough — probably the most powerful foreign policy staffer in the administration — was seated with the two grand old men of “realist politics,” former National Security Advisors Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Also at the table, New America’s Steve Clemons, who qualified that he and the others are “progressive realists” and added that the table also included “Sex and the City” creator Darren Starr and TPM founder Josh Marshall, the host.
Scowcroft and Brzezinski have been vying for influence in the Obama White House since Obama introduced the latter in Iowa, then distanced himself from him over Israel. They’re currently central to the efforts to persuade Obama to advance his own Mideast peace plan.
McDonough, who came up on the process-oriented Hill, tends to keep his own broader views on foreign policy close to the vest.
To translate: one of the administration’s key foreign-policy hands goes to the most highly publicized event in town to hob-nob with the advisor who Obama had sworn during the campaign not to be an advisor, who has suggested that we shoot down Israeli planes if they cross Iraqi air space on the way to Iran, and who wants to impose a peace deal on Israel. And, for good measure, he sits with the purveyors of a website infamous for puff pieces on terrorists and committed to a hard-left anti-Israel line. It was an act of defiance — see who our friends are? Well, I guess we do.
So the question remains whether the Jewish community is as easily lulled into passivity as the Obama administration believes. Can a few carefully worded speeches get American Jews off their backs? After all, they’ve been so mute about the effort by Obama to undermine sanctions. And really, they were able to “condemn” Israel without being condemned in turn by the Jewish groups, which have clung so dearly to the Democratic Party. Smith shouldn’t be skeptical: American Jewish officialdom is falling over themselves to make up with the administration. Whether rank-and-file members and the larger Jewish community are as easily swayed, remains to be seen.
John, I don’t want either the Government or a private insurance company making medical decisions on my behalf. However,As long as the government or the private insurance companies are the “Payers”, they will have some control over the process. They are practicing medicine without a liscense. I would be for a law prohibiting insurance companies including HMOs,PPOs etc from being involved in healthcare because they want to control how my doctor/hospital practices medicine. My health is not their primary interest.
Mr. Gordon has a good question, but I also have one. By what criteria does Medicare decide NOT to fund durable medical equipment for claimants? And why should people be sentenced to a national health care program that makes them subject to such decisions?
Although I feel RCAR’s pain regarding the intervention of insurance companies and HMOs in treatment decisions, those companies would go out of business if they had no control over their outlays. No kind of insurance firm is sustainable if the insurer just has to lay out whatever a third party prescribes.
The source of soaring medical costs in the US is regulation, and Medicare itself, which is the pretext for about 95% of regulation at the state level. The premiums we pay, and the cost of services, ALREADY represent state-regulated cost-sharing, which is why they are so high. If you have insurance, you are already paying for other people’s health care, and paying to have your health care rationed by state bureacrats. We just don’t call it that. Less regulation, not more, is what we need. McCain has a good proposal to at least start us out with more CHOICE: cross-state private insurance options, and increased advantage for medical savings accounts. More choice, less regulation, less of the built-in cost-sharing of regulation: those are what will bring health care costs down.
“Less regulation, not more, is what we need”
That’s why we need to get both Government and the Insurance companies out of healthcare. If I and everybody has to pay their healthcare 100% out of pocket, watch the costs drop,and watch competition kick in. There is no competition when the Insurance companies are in the health business because they all pay the same amount, the UCR. Open heart surgery costs the same in Boise as it does in NYC. If I were paying for my own open heart surgery, it wouldn’t cost $150000,it would be more like $25k,that’s all I’m worth.
RCAR is on the right track, but the reason for the dysfunction in the health insurance market is because it is NOT truly insurance, but mostly pre-paid health and medical care. Health insurance should be used for insurable events, i.e. major medical: accidents, hospitalization and surgical, and not for office visits, dental care, vision exams, mental health therapy, chiropractic, et al. Incidental, on-going, and preventative health and medical care are not insurable events.
And it is safe to say that the politicians are the ones who have f***ed it up. The various states have legislated myriad coverage mandates that are simply the political response to rent-seeking interest groups that want their revenue stream protected against the consumer choosing for themselves not to spend money foolishly on unnecessary health care services.
Last time I checked, an individual cannot set up a health savings account in the state of New York because the mandates are so extensive there is no stripped-down major medical policy available for purchase (with the differential savings deposited in an HSA account to cover on-going and customary out-of-pocket medical care). In other words, I cannot purchase insurance–I must purchase a package of health care services the state deems I must consume. This is shameful.
Health care is so costly because too much of the overhead consists of people not delivering health care–think of $300,000 per year community outreach coordinators, as a start.
Tell us about Bush’s prescription drug program. It does not allow the government to invite competitive bidding for drug purchases. Of course Medicare needs better controls. Competent managers, enabled by their political masters, can provide that.
It’s just that Republicans are not serious about efficient and effective government; they merely want to use problems like this to “strangle government in the bathtub” (Grover Norquist) any way they can. They put incompetent people (remember “heckuvajob Brownie”?) in government executive positions to fulfill their prophecies of government failure.
In order to understand why there is no free market for health care you have to understand how healthcare costs are established,and the fact that they are standardized. Look at the Medicare DRG schedules(Diagnostic Related Groups),then watch how they are replicated in the Blue Cross system,and then further replicated by all the other Private Payers. Medicaid is cheaper,but most physicians won’t accept Medicaid. So we have socialized medicine(De Facto). You just can’t have a free market when the Prices(not costs)are basically standard.
#5–Amidut states: “Medicare needs better controls. Competent managers, enabled by their political masters, can provide that.”
I would be interested in seeing a list of examples of efficient and effective government programs run by competent mangers? Care to provide some evidence.
I won’t hold my breath.
Lefty-progressives are a confident sort. They’re absolutely positive that if only they were in charge, government programs would run smoothly–as if the cause of East Germany’s failure was the lack of competent American bureaucrats.
Forbes has probably never seen a competent government bureaucrat or an incompetent manager in private industry. Of course, politics always corrupts government management and never in private industry. And incompetent private firms (our banks) or criminal enterprises (Enron) never do much damage in our free capitalist system. Just privatize the profits and socialize the losses of our managerial class just so long as they pretend to believe fervently in private enterprise and contribute to the Republican Party.
Health care rarely runs to everyone’s satisfaction -some people never expect to die.
Other countries do have national insurance systems plus private insurance options.
Hate to tell you this but my full comprehensive cover is $US 180 per month for a family.
Many super expensive anti-cancer drugs such as herceptin -even tykerb – are FREE!
.
Amidut: I agree completely: Privatizing profits and socializing losses is wrong and dangerous. Neither you nor I should should have to compensate homeowners for the losses they experienced while speculating on housing prices. Yet it seems it is our government that is in the business of making that arrangement, e.g. see recent housing mortgage bailout bill shepherded by Messrs Dodd and Frank. But since Mr. Gordon’s post was about Medicare and health insurance, it seems a bit of a distraction to talk about incompetent managers (Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines) at criminal enterprises such as Fannie Mae. So, I’ll let that pass.
And I said I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a list of examples of efficient and effective government programs run by competent mangers. A good thing too, as your response failed to offer any evidence. I’ll take your silence to mean that no such evidence exists.
Cheers.